Here it is, take it

At 9:30 ET this morning, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hold a hearing to discuss a bill that would federalize immigration for the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). It should be available via webcast.

Why is this hearing important? After all, it's not on the evening news. It's not even scheduled to be broadcast live on C-SPAN.

The truth is, this hearing is only important to people who believe that America shouldn't be a place like this:

Using its immigration authority, the Commonwealth has created an economy that relies upon the wholesale importation of low-paid, short-term indentured workers. Foreign workers pay up to $7,000 to employers or middlemen for the right to a job in the CNMI. When they finally reach the Commonwealth, they are assigned to tedious, low paying work for long hours with little or no time off. At night they are locked in prison-like barracks. If they complain, they are subject to immediate deportation at the whim of their employer. Some arrive in the islands only to find that they were victims of an employment scam. There are no jobs waiting for them, and no way to work off their bondage debt.

That's from a February 2000 press release, issued by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) to announce the unanimous passage in the Senate of a bill that would put an end to the "system of indentured immigrant labor [that] is morally wrong, and violates basic democratic principles."

It's not hard to understand how the Senate came to unanimity on the issue. The Department of the Interior had issued a report that highlighted horrors like "forced abortions and that women and children were subject to forced prostitution in the local sex-tourism industry."

Congress, itself, had heard testimony so gut-wrenching, I honestly can't bring myself to quoting it here.

Of course it was a unanimous vote. Who could vote against ending forced abortions? Who could vote against stopping children from being forced into prostitution... On American soil, no less? It just breaks your heart thinking about it.

That is, if you have a heart. Akaka's celebratory press release ends with this: "S. 1052 now moves to the House of Representatives for action."

And that's where Tom DeLay took over. That's where Jack Abramoff's money went. That's where Don Young's convicted felon aide and former CNMI labor secretary worked. That's where a decision was made to allow the rape and slavery continue. DeLay called it "a perfect petri dish of capitalism."

For years, the House of Representatives was a place where these victims -- on American soil legally -- could seek no relief. That can all change right now, if good Americans decide we won't let this oppression continue on U.S. soil.

It's really that simple. Either we convince a Democratic Senate and Congress to stop it right now, while the issue is in front of them, or the Senate will move on to other things and the horrors will continue. The TV isn't telling you that, but that's what the blog-o-sphere is for, right?

Blogger Dengre is attending the hearing. He has brought with him the testimony of thousands of CNMI workers praying for S.1634 to pass (with amendments to make it stronger). The testimony was gathered by human rights advocate Wendy Doromal, who travelled to CNMI specifically to help these victims have their voices heard.

DeLay, Abramoff and their cohorts have prevented Congress from restoring human rights and human dignity to the indentured servants and oppressed women of the Marianas. The universe has finally aligned to give us the opportunity to rescue people who need help. If we squander this opportunity to do what is obviously the right thing -- stopping this abuse -- it will be to our everlasting shame.

Here are the senators on the committee. Please contact yours and urge them to support S.1634. Dengre suggests the following changes:

1. Create a pathway to Citizenship for Guest Workers who have been on the CNMI for more than five years—and a Green Card for all workers with children who are US Citizens.

2. Outline a clear appeals process for any worker denied Immigration Status and/or other rights by the local CNMI Government through new or existing Federal systems of appeals.

3. Mandate that all CNMI entry visa programs—both work and tourist—are run by the Federal Government. (To allow the local CNMI Government to run a tourist visa program is to allow human trafficking.)

4. Mandate random, spot check interviews of guest workers and tourists as they arrive and leave the CNMI to ensure that they were (and are not) victims of abuse.

Sometimes it's hard to find solutions to the worst problems on earth. This one has been handed to us on a silver platter. Let's not miss this chance to do something tremendous.

End the abuse NOW

Timing is a funny thing.

I had been thinking for a while about how I might be able to call some attention to the deplorable conditions of women and men in the Marianas Islands. The forced abortions. The forced prostitution. What can only be called a form of slavery and human trafficking, on U.S. soil no less. I haven't been able to completely understand how it has persisted in America. What segment of the population can tolerate forced abortions? For a nation divided into Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, where is there a constituency willing to sit back and allow women on U.S. soil to be coerced into having abortions in illegal clinics?

I'm not sure what forces of the universe allowed it to happen with such fortuitous timing, but Digby asked me to post on her blog while her traffic was as high as ever, as she was accepting an award on behalf of progressive bloggers. I will always be grateful to Digby for allowing me the opportunity to point readers to the fine work of the blogger Dengre, whose work on the subject is unparalleled.

I looked forward, in that post, to an important Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on S. 1634, a bill introduced by Sen. Akaka to federalize the Islands' immigration policies. With enough pressure, the bill will pass -- with amendments -- and it will put us on the path to ending these atrocities, once and for all.

Here's where the timing is not so great. The hearing is this Thursday and the entire blog-o-sphere is buzzing with the looming battle in the Senate over the Iraq War.

I write tonight to plead with any readers to make sure this chance doesn't get away. We have a very narrow window in which we can literally rescue people in our own country from being treated like meat, locked away with no rights and no hope. Convicted for the crime of accepting a legal offer to work in America.

Thanks to Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay and other corrupt and morally bankrupt power-brokers, these victims have had no chance of any help from Washington for a decade. This hearing, this bill, right now is their chance for the kind of human rights we all expect in America. Please help me by telling your senators that this matters to you.

If you are already contacting your senators to encourage them to end the war, you can take the opportunity to ask them to support human rights in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).

Dengre has an eloquent new post with much more information:

Contact your Senator, especially members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Urge them to support S. 1634 and encourage them to support amendments that would:

1. Create a pathway to Citizenship for Guest Workers who have been on the CNMI for more than five years—and a Green Card for all workers with children who are US Citizens.

2. Outline a clear appeals process for any worker denied Immigration Status and/or other rights by the local CNMI Government through new or existing Federal systems of appeals.

4. Mandate that all CNMI entry visa programs—both work and tourist—are run by the Federal Government. (To allow the local CNMI Government to run a tourist visa program is to allow human trafficking.)

5. Mandate random, spot check interviews of guest workers and tourists as they arrive and leave the CNMI to ensure that they were (and are not) victims of abuse.

There are other changes that should be made as well, but S. 1634 is a start. It is my hope that a stronger Bill can come out of the House and the final legislation will be real reform. We have to use S. 1634 as the legislative vehicle for reform because the Ethnic Weeding of workers is well underway on the CNMI.

Next week, on July 25, the new minimum wage will kick in. The Pirates of Saipan will use it to fire thousands of long-time workers. Then they will have 30 days to find a new job. Then they will be on a 45 day clock to deportation.

That gives us 75 days (until October 8) to pass a final bill and have it signed into law. If it takes longer, more workers will be cleansed for the CNMI and denied justice.

We need to stand with them as they fight for justice.

For a very long time, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and the Republican Party blocked reform. If we fail now it will be our fault.

The thing I have always loved the most about America is that every single day, just by virtue of waking up, we have an opportunity to do something extraordinary. Sometimes we need more than that, though... An undeniable recognition that we are at a unique juncture, a brief moment in time when action is absolutely necessary and likely to accomplish something tremendous.

I'm writing to tell you that this moment in time -- right now -- is such an occasion. These people can be saved; we just have to make our senators understand that human rights are important to us.

Here are the members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)

Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI)

Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND)

Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Tim Johnson (D-SD)

Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA)

Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Ken Salazar (D-CO)

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Bernard Sanders (D-VT)

Jon Tester (D-MT)

Pete V. Domenici (R-NM)

Larry E. Craig (R-ID)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Richard Burr (R-NC)

Jim DeMint (R-SC)

Bob Corker (R-TN)

Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Jim Bunning (R-KY)

Gordon Smith (R-OR)

Mel Martinez (R-FL)

John Barrasso (R-WY)

If you see your senator above, please tell them to do the right thing. If you can call your favorite radio program, please do it. Isn't it obvious that ending this abuse is the right thing to do? The Senate's attention will move to another topic soon and these people will either be afforded human dignity or doomed to be exploited for years to come.

When this time has passed, won't you be proud to know you spoke for human rights in your own country when it counted?

UPDATE: Dengre has published an even newer post since I started (slowly) writing this.

Show some adaptability

(cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

At the Take Back America Conference today, in the Women Rising: The Issues that Count panel, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards made an important point that may only be just beginning to sink in for most of America: The Bush administration's changes to the judiciary are going to have a long-lasting impact on the nation.

I think the most lasting legacy of this administration, besides the war in Iraq, will be the total remake of the federal judiciary, which we're going to live with for decades. It's not... It is the Supreme Court, but it's obviously much, it goes much deeper.

And I do believe, actually though, this is the time that we... Litigation was a tool we used for years and at the end of the day, we always thought we could sort of rely on nine predominantly men in robes, and those days are over. And so I think this is our opportunity and obligation to rebuild a movement in this country. And it does mean building grassroots support in this country, state by state.

It's why it was so important for Planned Parenthood's action fund in the last election to demonstrate that being pro-women's rights and pro-women's health care was not only the right thing to do, it was the politically right thing to do. And I think that's why it was so important that we elected governors across the country and have to continue to do that. Because at the end of the day, the decisions that are being made, and some of them were spoken here, that affect women's access to health care, women's access to affordable health care and teen's access to comprehensive, medically accurate sex education... These decisions are being made by governors and state legislatures.

So, I think it is incumbent on all of us to do our work at the local level and as we know -- anybody who is spending time in Washington knows -- everyone on Capitol Hill came from somewhere else. So, if we change power in this country, we're going to change Washington.

The sooner this registers in everybody's skulls, the better. I hesitate to say that people who believe a woman has a right to control her own body have become complacent, but the fact of the matter is that the courts are no longer a reliable last line of defense for women's rights. The arena in which women's rights will be secured has shifted and become less concentrated, which means the burden of maintaining those rights will have to be shared by more Americans.

Furthermore, there is hardly a flatter lie than when a GOP candidate says these issues should be left to the states. Is there any doubt that the minute a woman no longer has a Constitutional, fundamental right to make these decisions, the pro-life movement will immediately attempt to have a federal ban? They've been trying to do that already, even with a woman's rights protected by Roe.

The ongoing struggle for women's reproductive rights is going to become increasingly a state and local issue, but it will remain a federal issue as well. Hopefully America won't waste too much time adapting to this new landscape because there isn't much time to lose and it's no longer up to a group of smart and dedicated lawyers to keep us free.

UPDATE: After reading some of Hullabaloo's excellent commenters, it is obvious to me that I missed a golden opportunity to point out that the president of any organization that endorsed Joe Lieberman has some chutzpah to be lamenting the fact that we can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect women's rights.

Matthews on 'pro-choice'

During the post-debate banter, Chris Matthews said:

Should a person have a right to end a pregnancy? And what would be the conditions that would require them to be allowed to do it or not.

These are tough questions of philosophy, of metaphysics, of deep religion and belief about human life. They are not open to a clever one-liner that gets you out of trouble. Rudy Giuliani is pro-choice. I don't like the phrase "pro-choice." It sounds too frivolous.

Is that right? Or is it only frivolous when it's applied to Republicans?

DEAN: This administration continually wants to insert themselves into the family's business, the Terri Shiavio case, that's the family's business, not the government's business... all these abortion cases, that's the family's personal business. That's not the government's business and we'd like to keep the government out of the people's private and personal lives.

MATTHEWS: So the Democrats are the pro-choice party, period.

DEAN: Well, the government...

MATTHEWS: The Democrats, your party, is the pro-choice party.

DEAN: No, my party respects everybody's views, but my party firmly believes that the government should stay out of the people's personal lives.

MATTHEWS: But, you're the pro-choice party, are you not? You sound like you're against them for being pro-life. Are you pro-choice?

DEAN: I'm not against people for being pro-life. I actually was the first chairman who met for a long time with pro-life Democrats.

MATTHEWS: This is a complicated thing for people. The people believe the Republican party, because of its record, supports the pro-life position. Does your party support the pro-choice position?

DEAN: The position we support is, a woman and a family has the right to make up their own mind about their health care without government interference.

MATTHEWS: That's pro-choice.

DEAN: A woman and a family have the right to make up their own minds about their health care without government interference. That's our position.

MATTHEWS: Why do you hesitate at the phrase "pro-choice?"

DEAN: Because I think it's often misused. If you're "pro-choice" it implies that you're not also pro-life. That's not true. There are plenty of pro-life Democrats. We respect them, but we believe the government...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in abortion rights?

DEAN: I believe the government should stay out of the personal lives of families and women. They should stay out of our lives. That's what I believe.

MATTHEWS: I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is the pro-choice position.

DEAN: The party believes that government does not belong in personal decisions.

MATTHEWS: OK. I'm learning things here about the hesitancy I didn't know about before. We'll be right back with Howard Dean.

DEAN: You know what you're learning...

MATTHEWS: Now, you're getting hesitant on the war and hesitant on abortion rights. It's very hard to get clarity from your party.

Debates: On Women and Race

Overall notes: Ten middle-aged, White men talking about things that concern middle-aged, White men. Nothing significant about women's issues (other than near unanimity in overturning Roe), nothing about AIDS, nothing about Katrina.

On race: Practically nothing.

MR. VANDEHEI: Governor Thompson, is racism still a problem in our society? And can a president do anything about it?

MR. THOMPSON: A president can do a lot of things. A president can -- can set a vision that's going to abrogate as much as possible racism in our society. A president's got to be able to get out and speak and be able to unite. And the great thing about Ronald Reagan was he was a uniter, and that's exactly what I tried to do as governor of the state of Wisconsin. I tried to bring people together. And if you do that, you can reduce and abrogate racism to a very great degree, and the president of the United States has got to be the number-one person in doing that.

Uh, so is racism still a problem? Answer: Ronald Reagan was terrific.

There was also this unreal exchange:

MR. VANDEHEI: Mayor Giuliani, Bradley Winters of New York would like to know if there's anything you learned or regret during your time as mayor in your dealings with the African-American community.

MR. GIULIANI: There's a great deal that I learned and a great deal that I regret during the time I was mayor, and a great deal I was very, very satisfied with.

I tried very, very hard to treat everyone in New York City the same. We reduced crime by 67 percent. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of that would have been in the poorer neighborhoods of New York City, not necessarily the African-American community, but a lot of the communities of New York City. And I worked very, very hard to try to move hundreds of thousands of people out of welfare. I think -- we actually followed Tommy Thompson's program, and we had the most successful welfare-to-work program in the country. We moved 600 and -- 60,000 people off welfare. And I think one of the reasons that crime is still down in New York today --

Good job, Rudy. You were asked about the African-American community and all you could think to talk about was crime and welfare.

On women: Practically nothing (other than the fact that they are practically unanimous in opposing abortion). There were two questions about women's issues. Beyond that and abortion, John McCain mentioned "women" three times, as in "young men and women in Iraq." That was it.

Here's how the candidates dealt with the two questions relating to women. First, Jim Gilmore:

MR. VANDEHEI: Governor Gilmore, this question comes from Malika in Washington, DC. Women are the fastest growing prison population. Most are mothers who are non-violent, first-time offenders. What will you do to address the issue of mothers behind bars and the children left behind?

MR. GILMORE: You know, when I was governor of Virginia I had to deal with a great number of these issues, and I think that we have to insist upon the obedience to the law. And that means that we have to let the courts and the juries make decisions based upon all of those matters.

When I was a prosecutor, I was an elected prosecutor, I had to address these issues all the time, and the fact is that we just simply have to have the law apply in an appropriate way.

Shorter Gilmore: What will I do? Nothing.

Next up, Tom Tancredo, courting the ladies:

MR. VANDEHEI: Congressman Tancredo, this reader requests a yes or no answer. Will you work to protect women's rights, as in fair wages and reproductive choice?

REP. TANCREDO: I will work to product -- to protect women's rights. The reproductive choice part of that, if I heard you correctly, is a reference to abortion. The right to kill another person is not a right that I would agree with and support.

Shorter Tancredo (if that's possible): Women's rights? Uh, yeah... no.

Every other mention of women had to do with abortion and the fact that everybody would be glad to see Roe overturned. Gilmore and Giuliani support limited abortion rights. Brownback said the end of Roe would be "glorious."

But I suppose I should be "reassured" by this display. Or, at least, I "need to understand" that it is "reassuring."

HOWARD FINEMAN: Keith, if you look at that picture and took away all of the writing and all of the words, and just had the image, could the American people tell that those were Republicans? I think the answer is yes. There is a hierarchical, there is, dare I say it, male, there is an old-line quality to them that some voters, indeed a lot of voters, find reassuring. And this is something that the Democrats need to understand. The Democrats are the “we are family” party, which is great, but this is the other side of the conversation and this is their home here. We really are in Reagan country.

Life

DB would write about how dark today's SCOTUS decision on abortion is...

But a new member of DB's family entered the world this morning, so we're celebrating life over here today.

TIME, get your facts straight

The numbers are equally grim around impoverished Latin America, where the United Nations estimates more than 4 million clandestine abortions are performed each year, resulting in more than 5,000 women's deaths. Underground abortions are one of the leading causes of maternal mortality in Chile. Although Chile has one of South America's strictest anti-abortion codes, it's estimated to have twice as many abortions each year (200,000) as Canada — a country with twice Chile's population. (Abortion is legal in Canada.) As a result, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, a socialist, late last year sanctioned the free distribution of abortion-inducing "morning-after" contraception pills at government-run hospitals. In a nation where three-fourths of the public say they oppose liberalizing the abortion law — which, like Nicaragua's, bars abortion in all circumstances, even in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger — women's rights groups concede Bachelet's contraceptive tack was the most legally and politically feasible for now.

Well done, Tim Padgett and TIME. Why not just get J.C. Watts to write your columns on reproductive health?

Chris Matthews, relent and repent!

"Hardball" host Chris Matthews interviewed Jimmy Carter Wednesday and took a brief break from telling everybody with whom he comes into contact that the Democrats are circulating a subtly anti-Italian "hit list" on Judge Alito.

DB took Matthews to task on Monday for trying over and over to force Howard Dean to reduce the Democratic Party's position on government intrusion into personal decisions down to a narrow and easily manipulated label:

MATTHEWS: So the Democrats are the pro-choice party, period.

DEAN: Well, the government...

MATTHEWS: The Democrats, your party, is the pro-choice party.

DEAN: No, my party respects everybody's views, but my party firmly believes that the government should stay out of the people's personal lives.

Dean stated the party position in one clear sentence seven times, and would not let Matthews stick his label on it. Matthews said that anything other than pro-choice vs. pro-life was too "complicated for people."

Fast-forward 48 hours and read what Matthews said to Carter (emphasis mine):

MATTHEWS: We're back with Former President Jimmy Carter. President Carter, we're having a new fight. It always begins with the new nominee... Judge Sam Alito, the justice to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's position. And once again, it gets back to the abortion issue and whether he believes in notification of the husband and all that. But it's really about the pro-choice vs. pro-life issue.

We had Howard Dean on the other night, sitting right there, and he said basically the Democratic Party should no longer be considered the quote pro-choice party. In other words they're softening something in the debate. What is going on here?

What is going on here indeed? Dean did not suggest a departure from any policy. He simply refused to accept a label. When asked why, Dean said the label is "often misused."

Matthews was told not to define the party with that label, so instead of stating their one-sentence position, he defines the party by it's relationship to the label.

Two questions later, Matthews comes up with this (emphasis mine):

MATTHEWS: I asked Ken Mehlman, who sat here the other night, the Republican Party Chairman, wouldn't we be better off if we didn't have the pro-life crazies and the pro-choice crazies? I mean by crazies means that they won't vote for a guy under any circumstances who disagrees with them. Get them out of Washington. Let these senators decide this. He said 'No, it's a good thing to have them here.'

Do you think it's a good thing to have these pressure groups...

CARTER: No.

MATTHEWS: ...that are absolutists about this thing?

Unbelievable! First he does everything he can to slap a label on Dean and then he laments the fact that people are divided into the labels he's forcing on them.

Let it go, Matthews!

But we only understand broad labels here!

On "Hardball" today, Chris Matthews tried repeatedly to get Howard Dean to accept to the pro-choice label. In various ways, eight times, Matthews tried to shape the debate and force the label on Dean and the Democratic Party. He simply would not allow Dean to talk about abortion in the context of a greater issue -- governmental intrusion into personal decisions.

Dean was absolutely correct to stick to his guns and force Matthews to debate on his terms. In fact, Dean appears to understand that the only way Democrats will ever regain any control of the government is by regaining control of the debate.

Matthews, on the other hand, represents the problem for intelligent discourse in America. Not only does he resist any deviation from the binary script that the media has locked itself into, but he actually cited the public's inability to understand "complicated" issues as the reason to keep the conversation at an elementary school level (emphasis mine):

DEAN: This administration continually wants to insert themselves into the family's business, the Terri Shiavio case, that's the family's business, not the government's business... all these abortion cases, that's the family's personal business. That's not the government's business and we'd like to keep the government out of the people's private and personal lives.

MATTHEWS: So the Democrats are the pro-choice party, period.

DEAN: Well, the government...

MATTHEWS: The Democrats, your party, is the pro-choice party.

DEAN: No, my party respects everybody's views, but my party firmly believes that the government should stay out of the people's personal lives.

MATTHEWS: But, you're the pro-choice party, are you not? You sound like you're against them for being pro-life. Are you pro-choice?

DEAN: I'm not against people for being pro-life. I actually was the first chairman who met for a long time with pro-life Democrats.

MATTHEWS: This is a complicated thing for people. The people believe the Republican party, because of its record, supports the pro-life position. Does your party support the pro-choice position?

DEAN: The position we support is, a woman and a family has the right to make up their own mind about their health care without government interference.

MATTHEWS: That's pro-choice.

DEAN: A woman and a family have the right to make up their own minds about their health care without government interference. That's our position.

MATTHEWS: Why do you hesitate at the phrase "pro-choice?"

DEAN: Because I think it's often misused. If you're "pro-choice" it implies that you're not also pro-life. That's not true. There are plenty of pro-life Democrats. We respect them, but we believe the government...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in abortion rights?

DEAN: I believe the government should stay out of the personal lives of families and women. They should stay out of our lives. That's what I believe.

MATTHEWS: I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is the pro-choice position.

DEAN: The party believes that government does not belong in personal decisions.

MATTHEWS: OK. I'm learning things here about the hesitancy I didn't know about before. We'll be right back with Howard Dean.

DEAN: You know what you're learning...

MATTHEWS: Now, you're getting hesitant on the war and hesitant on abortion rights. It's very hard to get clarity from your party.

The Democrats were not giving him enough "clarity?" In what way was Dean's single sentence unclear?

And finally, what happened to Matthews' memory? Perhaps Dean learned a lesson from watching "Hardball" and realized that labels aren't helpful.

Dean fully explained his position, and Matthews just tried to get him to say "I am. Yes."

Gee, that really worked well for the last guy who followed Matthews down that road:

MATTHEWS: Would you like to have your sentences cut down like to a third of their length and let people decide on the first three or four words what you meant by the 20 words? Let me repeat it again, what he said. I'm not going to argue this any further tonight. I think [the Bush campaign] should consider taking this off your loop. I think the president ought to be shown this tape so he knows what he's talking about, instead of having it fed to him by somebody who doesn't show them full sentence. Here it is. Let's take it in. Can we show the tape again of John Kerry, what his answer was?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong in that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war? The way it's been fought? Along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean, and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

KERRY: I am. Yes. In the sense that I don't believe the president took to us war as he should have, yes. Absolutely. Do I think this president violated his promises to America? Yes, I do, Chris. Was there a way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable? You bet there was and we should have done it right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

...

This is what the RNC-related web video used:

MATTHEWS: Are you one of the anti-war candidates?

KERRY: I am. Yes.

MSNBC.com even had a page devoted to the way his little sound-byte label of Kerry was manipulated by the Republicans... because Matthews was upset about it. Now, he doesn't even seem to remember it. DB is glad Dean seems to have learned from it.

UPDATE: This post was completely rewritten after DB got to listen to the interview again and realized just how bad the level of discourse is these days.

Also, four percent of DB's brain regrets not going for the easy post, which would be to howl about Matthews' way-out-of-line race baiting all day. But the remaining 96 percent feels good about focusing on smaller details like this, while every other blog crucifies him for the big transgression. Plus, DB couldn't have said it any better than this.