The Senate voted today to re-write the nation's FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) law, which used to protect Americans from unlawful government eavesdropping but now codifies George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program revealed by the New York Times in December 2005. Read more about the bill here.

I recently heard a piece on NPR in which the reporter asked people on the street whether they thought such changes to FISA was a good idea. Too many of them said sure, if it means the government will be better equipped to fight the evil terrorists and keep us safe. One person said, "I don't mind if the government listens in on my phone calls or reads my emails. I haven't done anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide. If it'll keep us safe, I'm all for it."

Government searches of my private affairs? Public officials censoring what I say or write? Lawmakers making decisions about what types of medical procedures I can have? No problem! I have nothing to hide!! 

To paraphrase that wonderful quote by Benjamin Frankin: Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little security deserve neither.



Barack Obama, despite teaching constitutional law and editing the Harvard Law Review — and despite vowing to filibuster the bill if it contained retroactive immunity for telecoms who allowed the government to spy on its customers (it passed with this provision) — voted for the bill. Apparently he doesn't see much need for the Constitution or its civil liberties either.

Hillary Rodham Clinton voted against the bill today.

      

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time ever on a Second Amendment case. After years of political debate about the true meaning of the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” the Court finally and definitively declared that the amendment does indeed guarantee an individual’s right to bear (carry) arms (guns, and in this case, handguns), as opposed to the alternate school of thought that “a well regulated militia” meant, well, the right of a militia—or a collective body, such as an army—to bear arms. The ruling jeopardizes states’ ability to regulate weapons in exactly the ways they see fit according to the types of unique crimes under which they suffer.

The Senate must be thrilled to have five new Republican members among its ranks, because I haven’t seen such a grand example of legislating from the bench in years.  And the hypocrisy! It’s the best example seen of that since Barack We-Need-Change-in-Washington Obama’s flip-flop on eschewing federal funding so he can raise scores more millions of dollars in an already record-breaking presidential campaign. In their decision, these new senators became magically, uniquely enlightened to interpreting the Framers’ intent. And who would have guessed that it just happens to suit their own conservative ideologies?

We’ve heard these same "senators" complain of liberal judges legislating from the bench before. They’ve even accused their own colleagues of doing so, such as when the Court saw in the Constitution a right to bodily privacy and integrity (see Roe v. Wade, granting abortion rights) and the right to relationship privacy, such as the freedom to have sex with whomever you want, gay or straight, without being thrown in jail (see Lawrence v. Kansas, outlawing all remaining sodomy laws, most of which were used to target homosexual activity). Such decisions have been increasingly derided—and cited in Republican political campaigns—as judicial attempts to impose a liberal orthodoxy on the masses. Stop legislating from the bench! Why can’t judges just judge? Why must they carve out specific individual rights at will where no such rights clearly exist in the Constitution? That’s not what our Framers wanted!

Well nowhere in the Second Amendment do you see the words “individual.” And if by “the people” the Framers really meant individuals, wouldn’t they have said just “people,” as the “the” seems to indicate a collective body, like the right of “the Senate” vs. the right of “Senators”?

Sens. Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas crafted their opinion in precisely the way they want public policy on gun control and gun rights changed. Legislating from the bench, indeed.

      

Today California became the second state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The first couple to legally wed was Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, who have been together for over 50 years. They won't live long enough to see the first woman president, but thankfully they lived long enough for the right to marry the person they love.  A sweet consolation this political season, and the perfect kickoff to June Pride activities.

      

(Caution, it’s a long one. You knew it was coming…)

My friends and I cried while we watched Hillary give her final victory speech Tuesday night after her 10-point come-from-behind victory in South Dakota. (She got undeserved flack for her lack-of-concession speech that night. Why should she have conceded then? She’d just finished the primary season winning 8 of the last 12 contests and with more total popular votes—yes, because Obama voluntarily took his name off the ballot in Michigan and, together with Congressman John Conyers, embarked on a well-organized “vote uncommitted” campaign—than Obama or any Democratic presidential nominee in history. She deserved her right to thank her supporters, remind people of her victories, and to demand respect and visibility for the 18 million people who voted for her.) We cried because we were witnessing dreams fallen short—thwarted by the forces of youthful and blissful ignorance, betrayed loyalties, and the fascination with shiny, new, good-looking, sweet-talking things—with severe doubts that we’d ever see a woman in the White House in our lifetimes.

I’ve been finding slight solace in the fact that since Tuesday night, the punditocracy and blogosphere has been fixated most loudly not so much on Obama’s historic position, but on Hillary—what will she do next? What went wrong? When will she concede?

A top question has been, “Did she lose because of sexism?” Of course, everyone rushes to say “no” because, well, it just isn’t cool to face the fact that sexism does still exist and still hurts women in our society. I think sexism played a huge role. Even if you posit that it didn’t cause a direct role—it wasn’t sexism per se that caused her to lose—it is certainly true that the sexism exhibited toward Hillary by much of the media and many in the public (think of those Hillary nutcrackers and the “Iron my shirt, bitch” brigades) created unfavorable and unfair images of her in the public’s mind. Those biased images portrayed and peddled by the media have a very real impact on those people who don’t follow politics as closely as political junkies like me. They don’t watch the debates in full, don’t tune in for the candidates’ interviews on the Sunday morning talk show circuit. All they know of Hillary are the out-of-context clips on MSNBC accompanied by the biased framing of people like Keith Olberman who time and time again portrayed her as conniving, calculating, shrill, kitchen-sink-throwing, untruthful, and unlikeable to a majority of Americans. If you don’t believe me, ask many Obama supporters—these are many of the reasons they give for why Obama would make a better general election candidate, as told to me personally by Obama-supporting friends and by fellow delegates at my caucus meetings.  When I ask them “did you watch the whole debate” or “did you actually see or read the entire interview,” most times the answer was no. So where do those opinions come from? They spread and fester like viruses, and the media has been the greatest delivery system for that virus. And as the public starts regurgitating these false impressions, those who govern them and need their votes—i.e., superdelegates—take their cues and throw their support behind the candidate who best safeguards their own best political interests.

If you’re skeptical of the media’s sexist treatment of Hillary and sexist behavior in general, check out this great (in an awful way) montage created by the Women’s Media Center:  Sexism Sells, But We're Not Buying.

Then read this fantastic post by Judith Warner of the New York Times, proclaiming that Hillary’s ultimate crime was “Striving While Female.”

Why were common attitudes about her in the media and by the public sexist? Not just because they talked about Hillary in ways they never talk about men (constant references to the pantsuit, or the cackling and nagging voice, or doubts about how anyone could support someone who stayed married to a philandering husband), but because there is no way in this world our citizens or our media would have tolerated such treatment of Obama.  From Warner’s piece:

"Stephen is not the first commentator to note that if similarly hateful racial remarks had been made about Obama, our nation would have turned itself inside out in a paroxysm of soul-searching and shame. Had mainstream commentators in 2000 speculated, say, that Joe Lieberman had a nose for dough, or made funny Shylock references, heads would have rolled – and rightfully so.

But 16 months of sustained misogyny? Hey — she asked for it. With that voice, (“When Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, ‘Take out the garbage’ ” Fox News regular Marc Rudov, author of “Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables,” said in January). With that ambition, and that dogged determination (“like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court,” according to MSNBC commentator Mike Barnicle) and, of course, that husband (Chris Matthews: “The reason she’s a U.S. Senator, the reason she’s a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around.”). Clearly, in an age when the dangers and indignities of Driving While Black are well-acknowledged, and properly condemned, Striving While Female – if it goes too far and looks too real — is still held to be a crime."

The biggest thing that burns me, and most women I know who support her, is that if a woman of Obama’s history and qualifications had tried to run for president, there’s absolutely no way she would have won the nomination or even have been in the running. Geraldine Ferraro is not racist, she was right. Obama was lucky.  There’s little doubt that such a woman would even have tried to run, conditioned as we are not to believe in ourselves. We don’t think we can aspire to such great heights, at least not without first enduing years of working our way tediously and obediently up the ladder (which, by the way, was the exact approach Hillary took when first entering the Senate eight years ago). A more perfect example of sexism cannot be found.

It’s hard to get over this sting. But I draw a lot of strength and courage and grace from the example Hillary has set , and I hope a lot of other little girls, young women, and all women do, too.

One thing I’m sure of: Hillary will still get my vote in November, when I write her in on my ballot.

      

It's amazing how the candidate declared the loser in the Democratic nomination race by the media and virtually all self-proclaimed experts (after coming from behind to win one race and losing a race she had long been trailing anyway) can, just one week later, win a contest by a whopping 41% and over 144,400 votes as I write this (with 98% reporting)—and still be proclaimed an impossible winner.

If the superdelegates are going to live up to their responsibility as party wise women and men—versus protecting what they perceive are their own political fortunes—they will do well to heed the argument and facts laid out so clearly in this piece, "Hillary Clinton Must Be the Democratic Nominee; Do the Math."  No one is talking much about the electoral college these days, but as this piece points out, that's the only race that matters now, and this year's primary season makes it very clear that Hillary is the party's best chance at winning in November.

It felt so good to see her win every single precinct in the West Virginia primary tonight, in spite of everyone telling her to drop our or claiming there's virtually no way for her to win the nomination. Her victory is so sweet, it helps wipe away the sad reality of the subtle and overt sexism that has permeated the media coverage and popular reaction to her candidacy. This fact is not getting reported on and repudiated enough in this race. While everyone is very quick to single out polls that reflect the number of voter for whom race is an issue that would prevent them (or "someone you know") from voting for a black candidate, it's somehow not important or relevant to call to task those who judge and attack Clinton based on her gender.

I think when this race is long over—no matter who makes it on to the general election—we'll look back and see that Hillary is the strongest, most capable female candidate we could have ever had, and the closest this country will ever be for years and years to come at electing a woman president. And if you read Dee Dee Myers' fabulous new book, Why Women Should Rule the World, you'll understand that the change Hillary's presidency would bring about in this country would be much greater and more revolutionary than any Obama could ever promise—even on his best speech day before his biggest, most hysterical audience.

Will the superdelegates please wise up?

      

Rather than comment on the ubiquitous bus-throwing-under events of this week (this Boston Globe piece sums it up pretty well), let's focus on something extremely surprising and enthralling—Hillary's appearance tonight in Bill O'Reilly's "Spin-Free Zone." She did so fantastically that it even prompted an Obama supporter after tonight's interview to quip, "If she can handle you, Bill, she can handle any rogue nation!" and "I think you have a bit of a crush on her."

My favorite comment, though, was Dennis Miller's sadly accurate observation regarding O'Reilly's asking Clinton if she was surprised that her campaign was getting the most favorable coverage by Fox News vs. MSNBC and NBC(paraphrasing here): "I find it very ironic that it's a vast left-wing conspiracy that's trying to do Hillary in."

The interview airs in four parts over two nights. Part 1 and Part 2 aired today.

She was brilliant. While watching her unparalleled command of facts, history, public policy, political savvy, I couldn't stop thinking of what an unmoderated debate between Clinton and Obama would look like should he accept her challenge (which he won't). If he does, it would make this week's Jeremiah Wright flap look like a painless game of Go Fish.

      

Hillary blasted Obama out of the water in Pennsylvania's primary yesterday, and it was a victory so sweet, so deserved, and so hopeful. Despite being outspent by Obama 3 to 1, she won by almost 10 points and by over 200,000 votes. Not only did she hold her key constituencies, she expanded her grip on them and dug into Obama's — look at the final numbers by demographics. They are astounding and should give Democrats true pause for thought as to who is really the best candidate in the general election.

She raised $3.5 million overnight and by the end of today, according to a conference call I attended today in which Hillary spoke, she'll have an amazing $10 million, in part from over 60,000 new donors. But she still needs more—donate.

The best part of the night—along with the true hope I really started to feel for a Hillary presidency—was her wonderful acceptance speech. So eloquent, intelligent, confident, and powerful, it shows so clearly why not only she deserves our vote, but why this country needs her leadership.

      

Tomorrow, April 22, is a very important day. Most importantly, they all relate to my mother:

1. My mother's birthday: happy birthday, Mom—my inspiration.

2. Earth Day: everyone must love their mother earth. It always falls on my mom's birthday. Green is my mom's favorite color, "verdant" her favorite word.

3. The Pennsylvania primary: go Hillary!!  Strong women are unafraid and never back down.  Hillary, like my mom, was an active feminist of the 60s and 70s.

4. Equal Pay Day: this is the day this year on which women's wages catch up to men's wages in 2007. This is so because, lest you forget, women are still paid less than men for the same work they do. As of 2007, women earn only $0.77 for every $1 a man makes (for black women, it's just $0.68, and for Latinas, just $0.57). Who says women and feminism have come far enough?

That all these things are happening on my mom's birthday is no mere coincidence.  It is a tribute to her, so Happy Birthday, Mom (although you are vacationing in Europe right now and likely won't read this for another week)!

And go Hillary—here's hoping the people of Pennsylvania—which include most of my father's side of the family—are as smart as the people in places like Massachusetts, where most of my wife's family lives.

And Jay Cost—keep writing your brilliant, insightful pieces.

      

"Bitter-gate," as it's now being frequently referred to, has induced so much rich writing, opining, theorizing, and speculating that I've had a deliciously difficult time keeping up with all that it has stirred up. But I write to draw your attention to three great pieces I've read in the last couple of days. (Thank god for realclearpolitics.com, which helps keep me focused, well-informed, and distracted from work each day.)

1. Hey, Obama boys: Back off already! (Rebecca Traister, Salon.com)
**Must read!**
One of the smartest, most necessary reads of the election thus far, from a woman who isn't exactly a Hillaryite but who deconstructs perfectly the sexism and misogyny lurking (sometimes not so secretly) underneath Obama's campaign and his supporters. It's written from a 30-something women's perspective, which perhaps is why it particularly resonates with me. If you think you've read it all before about sexism, feminism, Obama-cultism in Election 2008, think again. Here's a snapshot that hopefully induces you to read the whole thing:

"I began reporting this story in part because, as a 32-year-old woman who is more liberal than either candidate, and who was quite torn until Super Tuesday, I had found myself increasingly defensive of Clinton in the face of the Obama worship that rules the mostly white, liberal, well-educated circles in which I work and travel. I was confused by the saucer-eyed, unquestioning devotion shown by my formerly cynical cohorts, especially when it was accompanied, as it often was, by a sharp renunciation of Hillary Clinton, whose policies are so similar to her opponent's. I was horrified by the frequent proclamations that if Obama did not win the nomination, his supporters would abstain from voting in the general election, or even vote for John McCain. I was suspicious of the cultlike commitment to an undeniably brilliant and inspiring man –- but one whom even his wife calls "just a man."

I am a loud feminist and a longtime Clinton skeptic who was suddenly feeling that I needed to rationalize, apologize for, or even just stay quiet about my increasing unease with the way Clinton was being discussed. Meanwhile, I was getting e-mails from men I didn't know well who approached me as a go-to feminist to whom they could express their hatred of Hillary and their anger at her staying in the race — an anger that seemed to build with every one of her victories. One of my closest girlfriends, an Obama voter, told me of a drink she'd had with a politically progressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton's policies before adding that when he hears the senator's voice, he's overcome by an urge to punch her in the face."

2. Obama, Small Town Whites, and the Super Delegates (Jay Cost on realclearpolitics.com)
This guy is an electoral statistics genius! In looking at the breakdown of white support (or lack thereof) for Obama in Ohio, Cost makes a compelling, fact-based case for why his candidacy could spell yet another presidential defeat for democrats in 2008. Look at his table breaking down white support in Ohio's 6th congressional district for Hillary during the primary compared against how John Kerry did with the same voters in 2004—the numbers tell a scary picture for a potential Obama nomination. Look at the charts; read this article!

For a similarly nerdy yet utterly fascinating mathematical/statistical breakdown—upside: there are groovy color-coded maps!—see Sean Oxendine's, "No Really. Hillary Has a Decent Shot." I guarantee you will find this so very interesting. Really.

3. A Living Lie (Thomas Sowell on realclearpolitics.com)
This piece is informative because it reveals the Obama most people haven't bothered to examine—the pre-U.S. Senate Obama—and shines a too-rarely-seen light on the realities of Obama's thin resume compared to his thick rhetoric. Not much else to say; Sowell says it all so well that you have to read it for yourself.

      

I asked two of my fellow newly-elected gay Hillary delegates last weekend whether they thought the LGBT community seemed more unified behind Clinton or Obama.  They weren't sure. While they were (obviously) strongly pro-Hillary, they lamented about how many of their friends and coworkers were Obamaniacs. I tended to think that Hillary might have an edge with queers, or maybe just lesbians, because nearly all of my lesbian friends strongly support her over Obama.

Obama has said some good things about LGBT issues, but part of me is distrustful. It didn't help that he had an ex-gay minster, Donnie McKlurkin, travel and campaign with him in South Carolina last fall. Sure, he disavowed Donnie's comments against gays, but how many times are we going to accept Obama's habit of befriending and soliciting the help of people who say bigoted things, and then disavowing their words without actually disassociating himself with such people? When does Obama finally begin to be that agent of change and unity he so passionately believes himself to be?

I'm not the only distrustful gay. This Politico.com story—Gay Press Frustrated by Obama Approach—dissects Obama's unwillingness to meet directly with publishers and editorial boards of gay presses across the country. According to the article, he has done some gay interviews, such as with the Advocate,  but has preferred not to meet directly with gay publishers and editorial boards because:

"Obama is talking to mainstream audiences about issues of importance to our community,” said Eric Stern, a leader of Obama’s National LGBT Leadership Council. “While Hillary is attractive, she is making her appeal almost exclusively to gay audiences. That is not a postmodern approach.”

That makes absolutely no sense to me. That is offensive to me. I like the Philadelphia Gay New's tactic:

Mark Segal didn't’t want to wait. After weeks of requests to interview Barack Obama, the publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News concluded the senator’s aides may never make him available.

So even as the Obama campaign held out the possibility of an interview before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, Segal published a half-blank front page to represent what he described in an editorial as Obama’s “disrespect of the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender] local media.”

Meanwhile, as documented in the Politico.com piece, Clinton has actively met with them in several cities.  And just yesterday, her campaign announced the formation of a 71-member LGBT Pennsylvania steering committee.

And you wouldn't know it if you didn't see Hillary's appearance on Ellen this past Monday (since most of the media coverage focused on her call for more breast cancer funding and her Kennedy-esque call to action to cure breast cancer within ten years), but Hillary spent a considerable part of the interview discussing queer rights. She gave a very personal account of how her parents came around on their views of gay people and gay rights, and how that has shaped her views on the importance of LGBT equality. It's a great exchange; watch it here.

While neither Hillary or Barack go as far as I would like on gay rights (neither supports gay marriage; only Kucinich and Gravel did), I definitely am feeling more of the gay love—and believing it—from Hillary. As my gay boy delegate friends reminded me on Saturday, Hillary's the only one who has marched in a gay pride parade. Here's a great one from NYC's 37th annual pride parade in 2006: