Sarah Palin is a member of "Feminists for Life" which is a group that is not just anti-choice but anti-birth control. She's been promoted as a candidate who supports birth control. How can she be both?

If she subscribes to FFL beliefs, support of birth control means support for the rhythm method.  It means opposition to birth control pills and IUDs, which the group considers forms of abortion.

To someone outside the anti-abortion movement, the code FFL and other such groups use in opposing the birth control pill and IUD won't appear threatening:

"Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons. FFL is concerned that certain forms of contraception have had adverse health effects on women."

The Bush administration recently used the term, abortifacient contraception, when coming out with a new rule that allows healthcare workers to refuse to provide "abortifacient" birth control such as the IUD and birth control pill. The Bush administration claims that these are forms of abortion. From The New York Times:

The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.”

So, for a member of the group "Feminists for Life" to claim to be pro-birth control doesn't mean what it appears to mean. Such members, according to their website, would support "non-abortifacient contraception" -- which means that they oppose birth control pills and IUDs as, according to their beliefs, forms of abortion.

See also this from a site on "Pro-life training:"

Pro-life advocates should, of course, distinguish between birth control that may be abortifacient in nature (that is, it may end the unborn’s life after conception) and that which is truly contraceptive (i.e. it prevents conception, but does not cause abortion). The IUD, for example, is morally problematic because it functions as an abortafacient in the event conception occurs. So do most forms of the birth control pill, though some pro-life physicians dispute this claim.[1] Hence, it is not unreasonable for those who oppose elective abortion to reject a birth control method that may in fact take the life of an embryonic human being.

Reporters needs to grill Palin on what she means when she claims to support for birth control. They cannot simply accept a pat "yes" to whether she supports it and assume she's moderate.

They need to ask whether she supports a woman's unfettered access to birth control pills and IUDs.  I guarantee you, a deeper probing will bring an answer in line with the recent Bush administration ruling.

There's a reason that Palin has been so embraced by the anti-choice base of the Republican party. It's because, as a member of FFL, she's a good deal more radical in her beliefs than she's being sold as to the American people.

Earlier today, on the Washington Post site, someone mentioned that the GOP was conducting an online poll asking who would make a better VP: Biden or Palin.

I voted for Biden and, after I did, the poll results to that point were displayed. 93% had selected Biden and 7% had selected Palin.

These online polls are unscientific, of course, but I went back to check just a few minutes ago and the numbers were the same for the poll (which had closed at 5pm):
93% Biden
7 % Palin.

So, I sent the link to a friend. And, in just the last few minutes, the results have been changed. They now read:

100% Palin
0% Biden

This is a hoot. Someone must have thought it would be a great idea to do this poll this morning -- before the last half dozen Palin scandals came to light. And now, they don't like the results.

I was surprised by the effusive praise Keith Olbermann and other pundits gave Hillary's speech last night. It was almost all about her. And, as usual, she padded her resume. When she claimed to have fought for healthcare for 35 years, I couldn't help remembering that it was more like 35 weeks. She bungled it badly, first time around, turning congressional Democrats against her because she refused to let anyone know about her secret plans and refused to compromise. And then, she abandoned
healthcare all together, until John Edwards made it a cornerstone of his 2008 campaign.

35 years in the trenches?  She might as well have brought up the Bosnia sniper fire again.

She went on about all she'd done and never giving up and every once in a while, she dropped Obama's name. The speech ended well and it seemed that she was onboard to help elect Obama but there was this nagging sense that she'd never said anything good about his efforts, only about her own.

But, okay, others loved it and I hoped that she'd made clear to her PUMAs that, if they wanted all the wondrous things they believed they would have had with Hillary, Obama was their only shot.

Then, I read this about what Bill Clinton was saying just hours before. And it was apparent to me, at least, that the Clintons are still screwing with us to further their own agenda:

Speaking at a forum of ex-world leaders less than a mile from the site of the Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton drew an analogy that had many wondering whether the former president had made peace with the idea of an Obama candidacy.

"Suppose for example you're a voter and you have candidate X and you have candidate Y," Clinton said. "Candidate X agrees with you on everything but you don't think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues but you believe that
on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver."

"This is the kind of question that I predict — and this has nothing to do with what's going on now — but I am just saying if you look at five, 10, 15 years from now, you may actually see this delivery issue become a serious issue in Democratic debates because it is so hard to figure out how to turn good intentions into real changes in the lives of the people we represent."

So, he threw in the disclaimer that it has "nothing to do with what's going on now" to cover his ass. This comes right after he praised McCain on environmental issues, the same McCain who chants, "Drill here. Drill now." Clinton wants EVERYONE to understand who candidates X and Y are, yet he wants to be able to say, "Who, me?" when he's called on it.

This isn't about the Clintons getting behind Obama. It's the kick-off of Hillary's 2012 campaign.

I don't believe McCain's inability to remember the number of houses he has is a sign of elitism. When you look at the many other instances of McCain's forgetfulness, it appears more likely to be age-related memory loss.

He also couldn't remember what kind of car he drives:

He forgot that Iran is Shi'ite and al Qaeda is Sunni:

He forgot the borders of Pakistan and Iraq don't meet:

He forgot that Czechoslovakia hasn't existed since 1993:

Obama would get slammed for pointing out all the above but you have to wonder why nobody in the mainstream media is questioning his mental capacity. McCain can't remember details about his personal life and about the world stage. He's claimed he didn't say things he said just days earlier. At one point, when McCain contradicted his stated economic policy, a McCain spokesperson had to say that McCain doesn't speak for the McCain campaign. McCain appears to have significant memory problems. Is dementia next?

Hillary said in her rally just now that she will be making no decisions tonight. Instead, she gave her website: hillaryclinton.com and asked people to tell her what they wanted her to do.

I hope that we can all go to her website as requested and, politely but firmly, tell her it is time to get behind the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party, Barack Obama.

Friends have been buzzing about MoveOn's take on Scott McClellan's tell-all about his White House years. "McClellan shouldn't profit off the role he played in our nation's largest foreign-policy blunder," says MoveOn, pushing for the former press secretary to donate his profits to war veterans.

I believe this is a misguided campaign.  Why not, instead, demand that all the war profiteers in Iraq donate their profits? 

I'm not going to call McClellan names or question his right to make money from his story.  I believe that MoveOn and others do us a disservice with this campaign.  Book profit is tiny compared to the billions in profits that have been or still will be made by all the people who have stayed loyal Bushies and will profit from their doing so. It's also beside the point when an insider is showing us how someone nearly took down the United States of America by starting an unnecessary war (probably planning another before leaving office), and generally screwed up everything else in govt.

Nothing is going to change within the Bush administration as a result of this book. Nobody's going to impeach anyone. So -- sooner, later, it doesn't matter when he spoke but that he spoke.

If we, who want the truth to come out, then bash the people whofinally find the courage and/or other motivation to tell the truth, the famously tight-lipped group of loyal Bushies will forever be tight-lipped.  We need all the information about what happened.  We need to be willing to make it worthwhile to those who break their silence. We need others to follow McClellan's lead and come forward.

So, I praise McClellan for his giving us insights with What Happened. I hope more will do the same.  That's what all the people of our country need in order to learn and to heal after this almost 8-year ordeal: insight into what and who got us here and how.  Otherwise, we're sure to repeat this.

I'd be laughing if this weren't so serious.  Our ports are STILL not secure, seven years after 9/11.  Neither are our chemical plants.  Those Air Force guys that sent nuclear-armed B-52s off across the country accidentally last year?  They just failed their Department of Defense nuclear security inspection. 

What we mostly got from our souped-up Homeland Security dept are color-coded terror alerts and instructions on using duct tape.

But ah, our fearless FBI agents will protect us from the forces of evil, right?  By infiltrating vegan potluck dinners:

Carroll, who requested that his real name not be used, showed up early and waited anxiously for Swanson’s arrival. Ten minutes later, he says, a casually dressed Swanson showed up, flanked by a woman whom he introduced as FBI Special Agent Maureen E. Mazzola. For the next 20 minutes, Mazzola would do most of the talking.

“She told me that I had the perfect ‘look,’” recalls Carroll. “And that I had the perfect personality—they kept saying I was friendly and personable—for what they were looking for.”

What they were looking for, Carroll says, was an informant—someone to show up at “vegan potlucks” throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors, schmoozing his way into their inner circles, then reporting back to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a partnership between multiple federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. The effort’s primary mission, according to the Minneapolis division’s website, is to “investigate terrorist acts carried out by groups or organizations which fall within the definition of terrorist groups as set forth in the current United States Attorney General Guidelines.”

Carroll would be compensated for his efforts, but only if his involvement yielded an arrest. No exact dollar figure was offered.

“I’ll pass,” said Carroll.

They never learn, not even after law enforcement got caught planting a mole in a Quaker Church group. 

I noticed that TPM has predictions for November election results highlighted on the home page as if they actually mean something at this point. 

It's a little early to hyper-ventilate about November, no matter who you are for or against, as Ben Smith of Politico demonstrates with a bit of visual deja vu.  Come back down to earth, or at least our little part of it, by taking a look at the predicted red and blue states on an electoral map from 4 years ago, almost to the day, when Kerry was projected to beat Bush by 327 electoral votes to 211. 

It's an interesting mosaic of predicted red and blue that you should go see for yourself:

Just a reminder ... of the thinness of assumptions built on today's state-level polling. Polls are wrong, and close, and above all -- things change.

Still acting as if the race is close (no not close,  she's winning; and not just winning, but secretly ahead by a landslide, except for the vast leftwing conspiracy that doesn't want you to know about her win), Hillary Clinton is running a t-shirt contest. 

The winning design (depends on the meaning of "win") will go on sale at her online campaign store. When?  Well, during the next several months of her campaign, of course, which may run until February 15, 2009 (not letting anything trivial, like an inauguration, for example, get in the way of her fighting for you!)

Pondering this, I came up with some slogans of my own, which I wanted to submit but, alas, the finalists have already been selected.  Since Hillary doesn't want them, I figured I'd share them with you.

"With Democrats like Hillary, who needs Republicans?"

"Hillary: if you can't beat 'em, make sure the Republicans do"

"Samantha Power was right"

"If you don't count any of the states I've lost, I'm winning!"

So, how about you?  Got a slogan that sums up Hillary's campaign in a t-shirt kind of way? 

One of the more interesting revelations from the new Scott McLellan book about his years in the Bush administration demonstrates that Bush may not have been lying to us all these years so much as lying to himself.  Not that that's much consolation:

In 1999, at a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest," McClellan recalls the Bush mind when dealing with rumors that the then-Texas governor had used cocaine.

Writes McClellan: "'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be? How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

Hillary claims that her husband didn't clinch the nomination until June 1992;  Bill claims that he's "never seen anything like it," referring to calls for Hillary to exit the race or, at the very least, stop the scorched earth tactics. "It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out," Bill complains.

In reality, he has not only seen, but participated in, very much the same  sort of pressure against a losing rival -- back in 1992, as the Jed Report makes clear.  What's more, Democratic leaders, including the then-Democratic Party chairman, participated in the pressuring of the candidate whose nomination had become, as Hillary's now is, mathematically impossible.

A sampling of quotes from March-April 1992 (long before Hillary claimed, in her now-famous quote that Bill wrapped up the nomination), is below.  For more detail, follow the link, above.

"Things I see happening in the Brown campaign lead me to believe something destructive is happening. I'd say it's time for Democrats to link arms, dig in our heels, set our sights and work together to put Bill Clinton in the White House in 1992."
-- Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (NYT, 3/27/92)

"In an interview, Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, said he wanted to maintain his neutrality but was compelled to speak out against what he described as the former California Governor's 'scorched-earth policy' of verbal assault on Mr. Clinton's record and character. "
-- NYT, 3/27/92

"It's mathematically impossible for Brown to get the nomination."
-- Clinton spokesman George Stephanopoulos on Clinton's last foe (NYT, 4/8/92)

"In the future, people will look back upon this week and this campaign as a turning point, not for Bill Clinton,  but for the Democratic Party and for America."
-- Bill Clinton, after winning New York's primary (NYT, 4/8/92)

"People are starting to rally around the flag."
-- Dee Dee Myers, Clinton Press Sec'y (NYT, 4/10/92)

"It's time to close ranks. We cannot wait until July when we already know who has earned the right to be our nominee and who will be our nominee."
-- West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller (NYT, 4/11/92)

"Indeed, reports circulating on Capitol Hill said the Clinton campaign was mounting a strong campaign to swing uncommitted senators behind the Arkansas Governor, and that Ronald H. Brown, the party chairman, was taking part in them."
-- NYT, 4/29/92

"I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would keep Bill Clinton from having a majority of the delegates by the end of the primary season."
-- Democratic Party Chairman Ronald H. Brown (NYT, 4/29/92)

"Mr. Brown added that he had long hoped for an early nominee 'so we can focus our time and attention on George Bush.'"
-- NYT, 4/29/92

All those who have been giving Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt, step away from the Kool-Aid.

Nevermind that she recalled a candidate's assassination as one good reason for her to stay in the race (because it might happen again?  It's really the only way I can see reading it, especially since she's said something similar on several occasions). 

If you listen to her spokespeople, McAuliffe and Wolfson, it's Obama who owes poor misunderstood Hillary an apology.  I'd say more but my brain just exploded.

From WaPo:

Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation", Clinton senior strategist Howard Wolfson said McAuliffe is "absolutely right" that Clinton didn't want to apologize to Obama for the remark and said: "I think it was unfortunate to attack Senator Clinton's remarks without knowing fully what she had said."

McAuliffe said Clinton is staying in the race to give hope to the millions of women who have voted for her and "she is winning races." And the campaign chairman made clear that his boss would strongly consider pressing on if the Democratic National Committee does not allow Florida and Michigan delegates to vote at the party's convention this summer -- a decision that would boost Clinton's delegate total.

I wrote to DNC Chairman Howard Dean just now, asking him to take charge to end the primary before disaster strikes.

If you want to write as well, here is the address for the comment
form: http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/chairman

Text of my email:

I am horrified at Senator Clinton's latest comment about why she's staying in the race -- hinting that Senator Obama may be assassinated -- and urge you and the Democratic leadership to immediately take
whatever action is necessary to END THIS PRIMARY!! Meanwhile, I hope that someone has the foresight to get Barack Obama extra Secret Service protection.  Some white-robed looney may take Clinton's comments to heart.  Please -- DO something.  This monstrosity of a Clinton campaign, from the "hardworking white voters," comment to the not a Muslim "as far as I know," smear is tearing the Democratic party apart and may be putting  our presumptive candidate in ever greater physical danger.

It.  Must.  End.  Now. Gather the super delegates and lay down the law.  Please.  Thank you.