As an Obama supporter, I'm embarrassed by this post. Puerto Ricans aren't "ready for statehood or voting rights" because they voted for Clinton?

Let's review a few things:

1. In a democracy, you get to vote for whoever you want. Even if "Facts are Good" disagrees with your choice.

2. Clinton practically moved to Puerto Rico last week. (And of course, being a NY Senator in a place where 78% of voters have family in NY is an advantage.) Obama barely spent any time there. Maybe he decided he'd rather spend his time in general election states, and maybe that was the right choice. But in Puerto Rico, he just got out-campaigned. Credit where it's due.

3. I agree with both Obama and Clinton that Puerto Ricans should have a right to self-determination, which means that they are "ready for statehood" whenever they say they are, which may be never. Of course, Republicans are going to do their best to stop this -- polls last week showed either Obama or Clinton would beat McCain by 60+ points on the island. In my book, those aren't stupid voters, and I'm happy to have them if and when they want statehood.

4. On a final note, turnout was low today in Puerto Rico (hey, maybe people can't be too bothered about selecting a candidate for an election they don't get to vote in), but Puerto Ricans often turn out in numbers as high as 90%. That's really impressive for any democracy. One more reason it's stupid to label Puerto Rican voters stupid.

Posted at June 1, 2008 7:31 PM in response to Puerto Rico votes against statehood and voting rights

Let's donate to Kay Barnes:

https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=7W6FXHfkhVUpRYqXqtY8Kg%3d%3d

Posted at May 20, 2008 10:26 AM in response to GOP Congressman's Ad Hits Opponent's "San Francisco Values" -- With A Disco Beat

Hearsay is allowed in an affidavit.

Maybe we just have different perspectives on what the "interests of justice" are. I think it's in the interest of justice to have lawyers make sure that innocent men don't go to prison no matter how heinous the charges against them are. All she was asking for in that affidavit was that a psychiatrist talk to the girl. Who knows, the doctor might have come back and entirely supported the girl's story. But she might have come back and said that, tragically, this was a very troubled young child who had made a false accusation with the potential to ruin a man's life.

Nothing you have cited is misconduct. It's just not. Ask any expert on legal ethics, and you're going to hear the same thing.

Again, maybe the difference is just that I think it's okay to zealously represent people charged with crimes, even bad ones. It made me angry when Republicans attacked Tim Kaine in Virginia for representing capital defendants. It made me angry when Republicans did it again to Deval Patrick in Massachusetts. I'm glad that Obama's not appropriating their tactics.

Posted at May 2, 2008 3:36 PM in response to Hillary's 12-year-old rape victim (& MSM's selective spotlight)

I'm not a "Hillarista." I voted for Barack Obama in my state's primary. I am using two of my 10 precious vacation days to travel to North Carolina tonight to volunteer for him through Tuesday. I have given more money to his campaign than I've given to any other campaign (in fact, all other campaigns combined) in my life. Despite being a dyed--in-the-wool Democrat, I am not sure I'll have the stomach to vote for Hillary in November if she manages to steal this nomination from him.

With that out of the way, Clinton wrote in her affidavit: "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body." Until someone shows me any evidence that she knew at the time that this wasn't true (and, by the way, the fact that the victim said something different doesn't suffice) or that she had no basis for making these assertions, I will continue to believe that she was acting within the letter and spirit of her ethical obligation to provide a zealous defense to a man who had been charged with a very serious crime.

I'm just not willing to add this case to my already over-long list of reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton. I'm glad that Barack Obama's campaign hasn't seen fit to pounce on this either -- in my view, that's one more reason to support him.

Posted at May 2, 2008 3:01 PM in response to Hillary's 12-year-old rape victim (& MSM's selective spotlight)

"First off, she crossed the line from advocacy to cheating and lying with the false allegations and smears."

I haven't seen information to support this. Is there something specific you're referring to?

Posted at May 2, 2008 12:26 PM in response to Hillary's 12-year-old rape victim (& MSM's selective spotlight)

I'm an indigent criminal defense lawyer in the Deep South. The work isn't easy, and having thinking people attack Hillary for doing it
doesn't make it any easier. Newsflash: the Sixth Amendment is still part of the Bill of Rights, and it still guarantees people -- no matter what they are accused of -- the right to an effective attorney. Whether you like it or not, legal ethics permits an attorney to put something in an affidavit if she has a good faith basis for believing it is true. We have no idea what the source was of Hillary's claim that this girl had credibility problems, so for now I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt.

I understand why people think it's appalling to attack the credibility of a possible twelve-year-old rape victim, but they need to ask themselves: if they or a loved one was wrongly accused of rape by a girl who lied, would they want a lawyer who could expose that or not?

I can't support Hillary because of the distance she has traveled since this case. In the time since, she has abandoned her principled opposition to the death penalty for obviously political reasons, stood by a husband who grandstanded on the execution of a man so mentally limited that he saved the dessert from his last meal for later, stood by again when her husband gutted the constitutional rights of poor people convicted of crimes by signing the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and, most recently, opposed the retroactive implementation of laws that finally corrected the racist disparities present in crack v. powder cocaine sentencing under federal law.

But if the Hillary who represented this man was running today, I'd be a lot more inclined to support her. That Hillary was doing brave,
unpopular work without concern for the personal fallout because it is what her professional ethical obligations and the Constitution
required of her. I wish she was still around.

Posted at May 2, 2008 12:18 PM in response to Hillary's 12-year-old rape victim (& MSM's selective spotlight)