It turns out that only half the population of Iraq needed liberating: the half that have a Y chromosome.  The other half were, apparently, simply born wrong, and their repression is something that we must accept as the price of Freedom.  Freedom, of course, being solely the province of the male of the species.

More below the fold.

She [HRC] says she's been to eighty countries on trips.  My travel agent has been to one hundred fifty countries on trips.  That doesn't make him qualified to be President.

Look, if John Kennedy - who was running for President in 1960 when Eisenhower couldn't run again - if he had been running not against Nixon, but against Mamie Eisenhower, would someone say that Mamie Eisenhower is better prepared to be President than John Kennedy?  I mean, being the wife of a President doesn't make you ready to be President.

-Zbigniew Brzezinski, 3/20/2008, on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"

It seems as if the forces of the past and of the status quo have latched onto a narrative that suggests that Barack Obama’s message, while hope filled and optimistic, is ultimately empty.

They know this is false.  We know this is false.

Bush, Cheney, Rice, McCain, and many others in the GOP like to tell us in wonderfully soundbite-friendly fashion that in Iraq, "Failure is not an option."  Setting aside the fact that many who speak the phrase only do so as a means of demagogic political maneuvering, all the phrase really means is that we need to succeed in Iraq.

I imagine that most Americans - including many of us who oppose the war - agree that we need to succeed in Iraq.  Despite the GOP's attempt to frame the debate as one between their "Anti-Failure" position and our "Pro-Failure" position, it's really a disagreement over two things: (1) what constitutes success at this point and (2) how do we best go about achieving that success?

I've heard the arguments in favor of the current presidential primary process.  Basically, folks say that Iowa and New Hampshire are both that rare kind of state in which a candidate with very little money can still compete statewide.  Cool.  I get that.  It lets everyone have a shot, get some name recognition, etc.  That's a good and democratic thing.

As I wrote in a thread that kinda got buried, I'm just wondering aloud (or is that atype) here, but Levin called the nonbinding resolution a first step and suggested that if Bush ignores it, they will move on to legislation that would cap troop levels and/or spending.  Levin supposedly thinks this is a way to build a bipartisan coalition that - if Bush thumbs his nose at the nonbinding resolution (and by association the coequal branch that passed it) - would stick together (mostly) to do something with more substance.

My diary title today is a tip of the hat to FaithAndReason's diary for today.  It got me thinking again about the intersection of politics and belief, of church and state, etc.

FaithAndReason's diary is primarily about what it means to be both a Mormon and a Democrat.  It made me think that the larger question of what does it mean to be a Democrat and a ________ (insert belief system here), might merit some exploration as well.  So here goes...

Okay, so apparently Laura Bush is saying that the Republicans shouldn't use a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage as a campaign issue.  Umm, okay.  Now at first blush, I thought, "Wow, that's surprisingly compassionate coming from a member of the Bush family."  And then, my brain actually started working again.

The Washington Post story says:

The first lady told "Fox News Sunday" that she thinks the American people want a debate on the issue. But, she said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously."

"It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue - a lot of sensitivity," she said.

And, as I said, once my brain started working again, I realized that she's just providing cover for her party and her husband.  By coming off like the sweet little school marm, she gives the impression that her husband couldn't possibly be the hateful homophobe that he actually is.

Here in North Carolina we have a Democratic controlled state legislature and a Democratic governor.  Heck, even Massachusetts and New York - among the Bluest of the Blue - both have Republican governors.  My question is this: since we North Carolinians have a demonstrated willingness to elect Democrats, under what circumstances will we vote for a Democrat for President again?  We gave our electoral votes to Dubya twice.  Which likely '08 Democratic candidate could turn NC blue on the electoral map again?

Up for election for the first time after being appointed by the Governor to his post, Durham, NC District Attorney Mike Nifong began making public statements about sexual assault allegations against members of Duke's Lacrosse team very early in the investigation.  Interestingly enough, the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct seem to prohibit precisely the kinds of statements Nifong made and continues to make.

Specifically, Rule 3.8(f) (http://www.ncbar.com/...) states in pertinent part that a prosecutor in a criminal case shall "refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused."

No one has bothered to ask Nifong why his statements don't violate the Rule.  However, if he's worthy of being Durham's DA, it's a question he should have to answer.