Long-time SC regulars may recall that rdf posted here for a while. Apparently he has passed away . SC certainly wasn't his primary online home, but he provoked some good discussions here and participated in the community, so I thought I'd put up a note.

My impression was that rdf appreciated the contrast between "blue" and "red" in terms of political debate, so this picture of his seems as good a marker to put here as any. RIP.

The Obama administration recently released four controversial OLC memos (in largely unredacted form; available here ) that discuss in detail specific harsh interrogation techniques that, in the opinion of the memo authors, are permissible under certain circumstances. The Obama administration has withdrawn the memos but has also promised that those who carried out procedures authorized as legal will not face prosecution. Partially for my own convenience in organizing my thoughts and partially in response to some discussion I've seen elsewhere, I wanted to make a few simple points.

I've been hoping for the past six months that I would be able to find more time to devote to SC, but unfortunately that does not appear to be likely for the foreseeable future. At the same time I've become increasingly tired of online political discussion in general, which now feels repetitive and predictable. I very much support the mission of SC and would like to see the site continue to grow, but I don't think I'm currently in a position to be an administrator/editor/contributor. 

From CNN: 

AirTran Airways apologized Friday to members of a Muslim family for kicking them off a plane and refusing to rebook them despite requests from FBI agents who had cleared them of wrongdoing. [...]

So we went to Barnes and Noble the other day, and I'm sitting on the ground in the children's section with my 8-month old baby looking for a book to read to him. I take my eye off him for a minute or two and when I look back he's reached into one of the lower shelves, pulled off a Spongebob paperback, and is chewing on it. It's one of those cheapo books, with the pages only slightly thicker than newspaper, so by the time I notice we're the proud soon-to-be owners of this $3.99 treasure.

Bush will address the nation tonight at 9pm ET to discuss the proposed bailout. From CNN:

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush wants to explain the issues directly to the public.

"Americans are beginning to understand that a cold on Wall Street could infect Main Street as well," she said. "There are a lot of terms that are very hard to understand."

This is partially intended as a test of the coveritlive module -- we were gonna do this for the debate but it's looking like there's a chance the debate might not happen, so I figured I'd just throw this up. I'll demote it from the frontpage after the speech.

between a precipitous withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq that would plunge the region into chaos and ignite a bloody civil war, and the successful completion of a mission to restore stability to Iraq and leave it a free and independent nation?

Obama's dangerous plan of surrendering to al Qaeda:

Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began.

Some pictures of Elliot at 2-3 months old. I blame him for my light posting recently =)

Quick reaction cross-posted from The Forvm ; you're welcome to comment there if so inclined

A truly moving, heartfelt, and gracious speech. Senator Clinton opened with stories of her supporters who have given so much to promote her campaign, then passionately called for support of Obama and laid out the reasons we need a Democrat in the White House: for boosting the economy, for reforming health care, for responsibly ending the war in Iraq. Finally, she looked back at how far women in US politics have come, and how her candidacy has helped make the path easier in the future for a woman to become President.

It's been a long and at times bitter primary, but it's also been a historic campaign and I'm proud to be a member of a party that has put forward such qualified and groundbreaking candidates for President.

Here . Card of course is no liberal, so it's interesting to see his take. Certainly feel free to weight the relevance or importance of his view as you see fit. Also I have to admit I'm posting this partially for Ender, since Card is most known as the author of Ender's Game ;-)

On Wright and what it means for Obama, he strongly condemns Wright's statements but agrees with Obama not disowning his friendship with the man:

What are they, and why? My top three (videos embedded below the fold):

1. Mosh (Eminem): incredibly detailed and powerful indictment of Bush, works on many different levels ending with an appeal to vote. (kid oakland commentary)

2. Yes We Can (Obama + various): the music emphasizes his lyrical cadence and makes his message both hip and dignified. (We versus I discussion)

3. The Clintons (HRC + Bill): spoof of the Sopranos finale, shows her lighter side while still making it clear that she calls the shots. (Bill's take at the time)

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

Essays with useful background for this debate:
** Ideas for American Healthcare
** Must our final years be torture
** Medical Insurance, two personal tales
** Universal health care dead in CA: implications
** Health Care News on Clinics and Competition

More details below the fold

Edwards supporters should be proud of their candidate for running a strong campaign focused on the issues. They now must consider which of the remaining contenders deserves their votes, which candidate best matches the spirit of Edwards' platform. I believe Obama is the natural second choice; there are several concrete areas where he and Edwards split with Clinton.

The Democratic primaries are generally proportional for the pledged delegates, but there is a 15% cutoff at the district level for district pledged delegates and at the state level for at-large pledged delegates, below which candidates do not get any delegates.

Some resources that might be useful for a debate on the drug war, and a place for commentary on the debate or general discussion of this topic.

A recent Reuters/Zogby national poll for President gave the following results for the Democratic candidates (margin of error 4.7%):

Clinton 39%
Obama 38%
Edwards 9%

The dKos version (1/16/08):

Some random resources and excerpts for a debate on whether NASA should send humans to Mars.

Quick effort I tossed up on dKos . Not sure it's all that applicable to this crowd.

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.

Dennis Kucinich is the candidate of choice among far-left liberals due to his calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, for universal not-for-profit health care, for fair trade, and for repealing the Patriot Act. I think it is fair to say that the most radical anti-war activists and the most radical critics of income inequality in America are likely to back Kucinich if anyone. His populist message is, at first glance, most closely aligned with that of Edwards, who is also a critic of the "two Americas" and of our participation in Iraq -- Edwards does not go as far left as does Kucinich, but he probably goes farther than Hillary or Obama. One would think, then, that if Kucinich were inclined to support one of the front-runners, it would be Edwards -- as indeed it was in 2004. Not so, as it turns out.

Tlaloc argues quite convincingly that our current method of electing a President is flawed in at least two major respects: first, it values voters disproportionately, and second, it essentially disenfranchises voters who vote for the losing candidate within their state. I think that there are two reasonable counters to this argument: