One of the things that annoys Obama supporters is how some Clinton backers who previously showed a healthy skepticism for dubious right-wing sources and who previously showed an impressive capability to sniff out bias in a news article have suddenly turned to uncritically quoting sources with an obvious agenda against Obama.

Well, folks, it goes both ways. Time for the Obama backers to stop presenting Clinton bashing as if it were straight news. This extends to unfair criticism of Bill, of which there has been a lot recently.

This edition of weekend art takes you through the musical history of Paul Weller, lead vocalist and songwriter for The Jam, The Style Council, and then his own band. His evolution as an artist covers everything from punk to pop to folk to rock. Below the fold, some of the highlights from his outstanding career, presented as youtube clips with lyric selections and brief commentary. Note: this is the latest installment in a new weekend series spotlighting art at Swords Crossed, a political debate site.

Welcome to the third formal debate hosted by Swords Crossed and open to multi-blog participation! Today we will debate whether the US would benefit from greater governmental control of health care. Our current hybrid system suffers from skyrocketing costs and piecemeal coverage. Both Democratic candidates have proposed expanding programs such as SCHIP and Medicaid and imposing more stringent regulations on private insurers. Will such steps lead to improvements in the efficiency and quality of health care in America, or will they backfire and make an already struggling system worse? Come share your opinion and your reasoning.

Click here to join the debate at cruxlux

In an article published today in the American Spectator, David Catron gives his views on Obama's and Clinton's health care plans. He describes himself as a health care finance expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and advising hospitals and medical practices. He opposes universal health care, stating that our current health care system allows for capitalism to take control. We pay higher costs and get higher quality treatment because the better doctors charge more and the okay doctors charge lower rates. It encourages competition and competition drives doctors to become better so they can in turn charge more.

Needless to say his conservative views on health care are not mine. However, his article nevertheless contains useful advice for Democrats as we prepare to push for health care reform. Let me say up front that I think Obama's and Hillary's plans are quite similar; both would be an acceptable starting point and both need to be improved before they are actually passed. However, the differences are real and they are politically meaningful.

John Edwards recently suspended his campaign for the Democratic nomination for President, saying "It is time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path" and reminding us all that "We must do better if we want to live up to the promise of this country we love so much." He ran a strong campaign that influenced the positions of both Obama and Clinton. Naturally his supporters are disappointed. Many of them vote this upcoming Tuesday and are now trying to decide whether Obama or Clinton deserves their vote.

The plan to provide universal health care in CA, a bipartisan effort led by Republican Governor Schwarzenegger and Democratic Assembly Speaker Núñez, was voted down Monday 7-1 in the Senate Health Committee. In the end it faced opposition from both Republicans and Democrats, as well as from powerful special interest groups like the tobacco industry.

Below, some quotes from this summary and brief thoughts on implications.

Guys, I know it seems like primary season will never end but the general election is not that far away and we all know the eventual Democratic nominee is going to face heavy fire from the GOP as they try desperately to hold on to power in the face of a country eager for change. While we all want to vet the candidates and make sure that we choose the one who best represents us, the one who can win, the one who will be effective at promoting progressive goals, we should be careful not to provide unnecessary ammo for the Republicans. As I see it, we are coming dangerously close to shredding the party with internal fighting at the very time when we have a chance to send the Republicans to the wilderness. If Clinton wins, we will need Obama in the Senate; if Obama wins, same goes for Clinton. Edwards should play a role in the next administration and his voice needs to be heard. Below, some right-wing frames that I hope we can agree to not use against our own candidates.

There's been a lot of calls lately for Nader to drop out. Well, he's not going to, and good for him. There's also been a lot of calls for his supporters to vote for Gore. Let this supporter tell you, it's ain't happening, no how no way. And let me tell you why.

You see, Gore is actually pretty terrible when it comes to the issues I care about. Oh sure, he talks a good game about social security, and he was VP for the last 8 years of economic growth, and he's a consistent defender of the environment. But Nader! I mean, just listen to how much he cares about the little guy. He's gonna really sock it to those corporate bastards, you just watch. He's a real fighter, he'll make the Republicans run away crying. Nader all the way for me.

I wrote this a while ago for SC and decided to cross-post it here in an attempt to answer some of the attacks on Obama I see hitting the rec list with increasing frequency. I think much of the criticism of Obama is (deliberately?) mis-defining his version of "hope" as "wishful thinking" rather than "rational optimism."

Detractors of Obama often characterize him as all style, no substance. His inspiring rhetoric is portrayed as a cover for political shallowness; his charismatic charm is claimed to hide inexperience and naivety. Such criticism is uninformed. I won't concern myself here with Obama's record, except to note that it compares quite well to that of most of the other candidates from both parties and that I agree with most of his platform. Instead, I want to focus on his speeches, which reveal a mature understanding of the importance of rational hope in effecting change. Obama's style has substance.

The EC: prudent system established by the founding fathers to prevent tyranny of the majority, or obsolete system that waters down the influence of voters in more populace states? Recent history, of course, would incline liberals to disfavor the EC, but what about the big picture? What's your opinion, and what evidence is it based upon?

We're hosting an experimental debate to investigate the Electoral College. The debate includes essays (which anyone is encouraged to write; we'll add the links to the list) and a structured platform created at the neutral third-party site cruxlux that permits point-counterpoint debate. If you're interested in hammering out the strengths and weaknesses of the EC, or arguing your case to an audience with diverse political viewpoints, check it out. (I have nothing to do with cruxlux and can't moderate or otherwise control the debate there, it's all user-driven.) Below the fold, I've reproduced the explanatory post from SC.

"Nonviolence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the evildoer, but means the pitting of one's whole soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save honor, religion, soul and lay the foundation for that empire's fall or regeneration." -- Gandhi

In a conflict between groups with opposing goals in which one group has a large force advantage, the other group must employ non-standard tactics to balance the field. For example, in a military conflict the weaker side can attempt asymmetric or guerrilla warfare. I distinguish this from the alternative tactic of terrorism targeting civilians, which is regrettably common. There is another choice that is morally superior to terrorism and surprisingly effective: nonviolent resistance and protest.

The extreme interrogation tactics utilized to coerce a confession from a suspected terrorist have resulted in the judge tossing the case, allowing him to go free.

"This court finds the government's tactics in this case are so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice," Cardone wrote. "As a result, this court is left with no choice but to dismiss the indictment."

This was no Afghan taxi driver, either. This was a man suspected of masterminding an airliner bombing that killed 73 people, a man who admitted involvement in a series of hotel and restaurant bombings, a man who was arrested while in possession of 200 pounds of explosives. A man who presented a clear threat to public safety is now free to continue his terroristic activities.

In 1972 the American Bobby Fischer took on the Soviet Boris Spassky for the world chess championship in Reykjavik, Iceland. The match became a symbolic clash between the US and the USSR, locked in a cold-war struggle for dominance. Fischer's convincing and thrilling victory made him a household name across America and propelled chess to new heights of popularity. When he abdicated his crown a few years later and went into self-imposed exile, the technically proficient but dry Soviet player Karpov became world champion, and the sport went into decline. In 1985, the brilliant Garry Kasparov wrestled the title from Karpov (in a rematch of their drawn controversial 1984 battle) and began a reign of dominance that would transform chess, both on and off the board. Kasparov's break with FIDE, his battles with Deep Blue, and his scintillating style of attack made chess interesting to the non-expert again. While Kasparov lost his title to Kramnik in 2000, he remained among the top players in the world until his retirement in 2005. Today he focuses his efforts on a different sort of struggle.

From Balloon Juice, a devastating list of attempts to evade responsibility and pass the buck on Iraq. There have been plenty of successful operations in Iraq, from the quick military takedown of their army to the capture (and now conviction) of Saddam to the elections. But there have been obvious failures as well, and recent events give little rational grounds for long-term optimism.

I think it'd be a good idea to push legislation prohibiting gays from adopting. And owning pets. And living within 1000 feet of a school or church. And driving. And voting. No, wait, I'm serious.

Outrageous legislation along these lines would force the proponents of gay-marriage bans on the defensive, make them explain how they don't want to deny rights to gays but marriage is different. Color me skeptical that they could avoid sounding bigoted and actually make a nuanced case against gay marriage. Including a few of the more inane laws that have actually passed in other states in this "bill" would make it more powerful. Whaddaya think?