Past ready

Via Kevin Drum, I find this at the Corner from former Dan Quayle speechwriter Lisa Schiffren:

Admit it [Lisa Schiffren]

Let's say last night really did indicate that Hillary's negatives will keep her off the ticket. (Or keep her from winning if she's on it.) You know what? Deep in my psyche, in the place that kind of misses the toothache I've been prodding at with my tongue, I am having a tiny little pang of missing Hillary. Not her, but hating her. Hating Hillary has been such a central political impulse for so long now — 15 years — and I have had to work so hard to keep it up as she became more appealling looking, less shrill, more human — I don't really know what I will do with that newly freed strand of energy.

The sad thing is, America is past ready for woman president. Just not a woman who got to office on her husband's coattails. Time for the new crop of professional political women — the ones who are tough enough to run for office — to stick your heads up and start putting your opinions on the table.

Say what you will about Quayle, at least he didn't want people to know he wasn't that smart.

It's one thing to want to hate a political opponent enough that you struggle to do so for a decade and a half... Even worse to want people to know that hating somebody is central to your politics.

But what tips her scales from pathetic to imbecilic is the fact that Schiffren, while calling for "a new crop of professional political women," reveals without irony that her hatred for Hillary grew harder to maintain "as she became more appealing looking, less shrill."

What could possibly be keeping "professional political women" from jumping at the chance to run for president with writers like Schiffren ready to analyze their opinions?

But let's be real here. The fact is, Hillary was wearing a fairly low cut summer top. She was not displaying cleavage, as the shot on Drudge indicates. Someone else wearing the same outfit might have done. But Hillary Clinton does not have cleavage to display. Period. Indeed, Hillary never forgave her mother-in-law, Virginia Kelly for pointing this out decades ago to the young Bill Clinton, a cleavage man if ever there was one.

Perhaps Schiffren can go back to crusading against women in the realm of fiction if no ugly or flat-chested ones answer her call in real life.

Otherwise, I'm sure she can burn off that strand of energy fantasizing about the codpiece.

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.

CNMI Testimony

DB has received the documents Dengre will submit on behalf of the workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which will be holding a hearing on S.1634 tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. ET.

Human Rights advocate Wendy Doromal is in CNMI gathering this information because these people would otherwise have no voice in the process, which is just par for the course. Please contact your senators on the committee and urge them to support S.1634, amended to protect the exploited workers.

Here (if this widget works) are the PDFs of the documents that will be presented to the committee:



Here is the full-text of the brief statement by the workers (followed by some excerpts from Doromal's statement:

July 12,2007
Dear Chairman Bingaman:

We are foreign confract workers in the United States Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands(CNMI). We have lived and worked in this community for 5, 10, 15, or 20 or more years. We have served the community as nurses, security guards, technicians, mechanics, accountants, engineers farmers, domestic workers, entertainers, construction workers, fishermen, hotel workers, garment workers, restaurant workers, office staff and other positions. We were invited here to work and have contributed much to the commumty. We are the threads that hold the economic fabric of the CNMI together.

We make up the majority of the population in the CNMI, but we have no vote. We pay taxes and many of us have social security and Medicare taxes taken from our pay, yet most of us will never receive those benefits. We are often victims of criminal acts, but we cannot serve on juries. We are voiceless.

The illegal alien workers in the mainland United States have had their voices raised by the U.S. Senate who created a bill to raise their status. As legal non-resident workers also laboring and living on U.S. soil, don't we deserve to have our voices raised by the United States Senate also? An estimated 3,000 of us are documented as having United States citizen children who have lived in the CNMI all of their lives. Presently, we have no way to be united States citizens ourselves. Once we have completed with our contracts we are forced to return to our home countries. How will we be able to provide our U.S. citizen children with education, healthcare and nutrition?

We do believe CNMI is not only a part of the U.S., but is really U.S. soil. As workers, we have seen that the U.S. Constitution is not followed here in the CNMI. We do not understand this. The U.S. Constitution states that all residents of the United States are treated equally and given freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The CNMI and United States are one country, but has two systems -- one democratic and one that supports indentured servitude and refuses to enforce U.S. law.

We need to have federalization of U.S. immigration laws. For years we have suffered with an insecure status and are in the islands only as indentrued servants. Many of us have been victims of illegal recruitment and labor and human rights abuses. Many of us had labor cases that have never been resolved, backwages never recovered, and criminal attacks never prosecuted. We were told that the United States was a democracy, but we do not live in a democratic society here. We urge you to pass legislation that would federalize immigration and help us to achieve the stability and United States citizenship we deserve.

Here are some bits from Doromal's statement:

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over matters affecting territories of the United States. From 1984 to 1995 I lived and worked as a teacher in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). I witnessed appalling labor and human rights abuses of contract workers who came from their homelands to work in the United States. They came from the Philippines, China, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Sri Lanka, Russia, Pakistan, and other Asian countries. They sold their land, houses, and businesses to pay up to $7,000 in recruitment fees for a chance to live the American dream. But too many of these workers lived a nightmare instead. In 1993, I wrote a report that detailed the labor and human rights abuses in the CNMI and offered solutions. It was submitted to CNMI officials, to selected U.S. members of Congress, congressional committees, and the U.S. Departments of Labor, Justice and State.

My family left the islands in 1995 due to threats and terrible harassment that came about because of our human rights work on behalf of these victims. I testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in May 1995 and submitted an updated report on the status of the guest workers and problems with the CNMI labor and immigration laws.

Before I left the CNMI, I promised the workers that I would continue to appeal to U.S. government leaders to extend United States minimum wage, immigration, labor and customs laws to the CNMI. I am ashamed to tell you that 12 years after I made this promise I continue to plead with US government officials to fulfill this promise and finally put an end to the abuses and systemic corruption, and to give a voice to the foreign contract workers. That is why I am in the CNMI this month to evaluate the current status and conditions of the foreign contract workers.

The United States Congress has known about the seriousness of the labor and immigration problems in the CNMI for two decades. Although there have been attempts over the years to enact effective reform legislation, ultimately the Congress has failed again and again its responsibility to ensure human rights and enforce U.S. law on United States soil. Legislation is long overdue, and S. 1634 offers some solutions to the existing problems. With needed revisions, it could be effective in addressing ongoing problems in the CNMI.

[...]

Census figures reveal that the nonresident worker population has grown from 3,709 or 22% of the total population in 1980, to 39,089 or 56% of the total population in 2000. Today there are an estimated 84,000 people in the CNMI and only 20,000, or one-third of the adult population, can vote. The last time guest workers with no voting privileges or political rights outnumbered the citizens on U.S. soil it was called slavery.

Do the right thing

Here's a trick question:

Do you think it's OK for women on American soil to be raped, forced into prostitution, forced to have abortions, forced to work for a bowl of noodles a day, forced to live in squalor, ultimately to be deported, broken and penniless?

You know why that's a trick question?

Because it's not a hypothetical. It's been happening in plain sight for decades and unless you do something or say something right now, while Congress is finally looking at the problem, your answer might as well be yes.

It's also a trick question because I have forced you to make a decision. You will either act or you will allow these crimes against humanity to continue.

Sorry, but that's the way it is. Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and the rest of his thugs have prevented Congress from restoring human rights and human dignity to the enslaved workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Now that the Democrats are in control, the issue has come up again. If we squander this opportunity to do what is obviously the right thing -- stopping this abuse -- it will be to our everlasting shame.

It's that simple. We have a chance to end this practice right now. We might not have the chance again. Please read Dengre's diary, recommend it and take action now.

This is one of the things we really can change. The hard part was getting the chance to actually do something. The universe has aligned to give us the opportunity to rescue people who need help. How can any of us do nothing when it's so clear what the right thing to do is and the opportunity has presented itself to us so readily?

No excuses

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo)

Yesterday was Juneteenth, a time to reflect on Civil Rights and progress in America. As I was admonished in comments here for not making clearer, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery in America. But sub-human conditions for workers still exist, to the everlasting shame of the Congress that has allowed it to continue on American soil.

It's easy sometimes to feel helpless when confronted by crimes against humanity in distant locations, where seemingly little can be done. It is inexcusable for nothing to be done when the outrages occur within the legal jurisdiction of our own representative government.

I'm writing about the exploitation that is hidden away in the Marianas Islands. I'm referring to the women who are tricked into thinking they are buying a chance to work in America, only to learn that they are essentially imprisoned in a filthy den, forced to work for nothing, forced into prostitution, forced to have abortions, and finally shipped back to their homelands, broken and penniless. I'm writing about a man who couldn't "spotlight" a blog post; he lit himself on fire to call attention to the desperation that has been largely ignored.

I know of nobody on the blog-o-sphere who has devoted more energy to this horrible situation than dengre at Daily Kos. I urge you to read dengre's diary detailing how Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff made sure Congress would do nothing but turn a blind eye to these atrocities. You can read dengre's transcripts of the Senate testimony of abused women, some of which fell on deaf ears a decade ago.

You can also see a (somewhat old) video here that shows the working conditions out there.

Again, this is on U.S. soil. Now that the Democrats control Congress, there is no reason this ugliness should remain in the shadows. There is no excuse for allowing this exploitation to continue.

Last week, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) introduced "a bill to implement further the Act approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, and for other purposes." It remains to be seen what the bill hopes to accomplish, or what it will look like in its final form. Hearings may begin next month.

There is no doubt what the bill ought to do. Slavery is wrong. Rape is wrong. That may be hard for Tom DeLay to comprehend while he smiles to allow people to see Jesus through his mugshot. But it should be obvious to just about everybody else. Please put pressure on Congress to do the right thing.

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.

You go, Alison

Atrios beat me to the punch and put up this part of a transcript from yesterday's Countdown on MSNBC:

ALISON STEWART: And then there‘s Senator John McCain and Bill O‘Reilly. Let‘s just say you know you‘re watching Fox News when Mr. O‘Reilly said immigrants would, quote, “break down the white Christian male power structure.”

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE O‘REILLY FACTOR,” FOX NEWS CHANNEL)

BILL O‘REILLY, HOST: That would sink the Republican party, I believe, so we‘d have a one-party system, and change, pardon the pun, the whole complexion of America. Am I wrong?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, you‘re right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEWART: Personally, I don‘t really pardon the pun.

I don't either.

Atrios notes how ridiculous it is that Howard Fineman "is practically in tears about how awful John McCain must feel about all the lies he has to tell."

I was waiting for Fineman to remind Stewart that she should find it "reassuring" to know that people are so valiantly defending the "white Christian male power structure."

Also, later in the show, Stewart got another shot in for women of color:

STEWART: Behind every candidate, there‘s usually a political spouse who tries hard to balance campaign fundraising with family, and sometimes even gives up a professional career. Michelle Obama is doing just that. And, you know, oddly, the mainstream media seems fascinated with the concept of a strong, well-educated black professional woman who speaks her mind.

In my family, we call that normal.

Amen.

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?

Schooled

Every now and then, there's a terrific example of the rich and/or powerful demanding accountability or sacrifice from the least powerful people on earth, while exhibiting none of the behavior they expect from the less-fortunate. Actually, it's more than every now and then. It's every day.

Sometimes it's obvious, like Iraq and Katrina. Sometimes, you need to pay attention, like with AIDS in Africa and how the rate of infection has climbed:

But very quickly, the strings of the plan—now known as PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief—began to show. Starting in 2004, the U.S. recommended—and by 2006 required—that 33 percent of all prevention funding be earmarked for abstinence and fidelity programs. Condoms could be recommended only for high-risk groups, not for sexually active people in general. No funds would be provided to groups that don't explicitly condemn prostitution. Finally, the Bush administration seemed to be spreading a significant share of AIDS funding through faith-based groups.

Meanwhile, the AIDS pandemic has been rapidly feminized over the past 15 years. But PEPFAR—underpinned by the political and religious philosophies of the Bush administration—often doesn't take into account the facts of life for women in the countries it serves.

"The gender dimensions of the epidemic are completely ignored," says Beatrice Were, a Ugandan mother of three who has devoted herself to AIDS activism since 1993. "We know very well that women don't [always] have control [over sexual decisions]. There is rape in marriage. … Many women can't make a decision on whether to have protected sex or not, even whether to have sex or not, because it's their husbands [who] make the decision."

In Uganda polygamy and promiscuity among men is both significant and socially acceptable. "This [PEPFAR] approach places a huge burden on a woman to abstain and, when she's married, be faithful," says Were. "Personally, I did all of that, but I still got infected, too. It just doesn't work."

It's not just hypocrisy, though it is certainly that. It's morally repugnant because the results are tragic for the people at the bottom.

Yesterday, the clear example was distilled by Joe Kennedy, who gave a pitch-perfect rebuttal to John Fund and the Wall Street Journal greedsters on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room. Kennedy points out that the rich and powerful in America are not just using the same products from Venezuela, but they're the ones with both the ability to choose different options for themselves and also to provide different options for the poor.

Here's Kennedy's segment on CNN. It's long for a blog post, but it's excellent, so here's the whole thing:

And joining us now from Boston, the former Congressman Joe Kennedy. He is the CEO of Citizens Energy Cooperation.

Congressman, thanks very much for doing this.

I guess the logical question, how comfortable are you dealing with Hugo Chavez, given his record?

KENNEDY: Well, Wolf, first of all, first and foremost, I should just point out that Citizens Energy has been in the business of delivering inexpensive heating oil and natural gas, electricity, and a range of other services for 25 or 30 years to low-income people in many states all across the country, not just in Massachusetts.

But, in all the years that I have been doing this, I have never once been able to buy discounted oil. The only country that ever offered us that was Venezuela. And for those people who say that this is simply a -- some sort of propaganda item to try and offset the speech that -- the famous speech that he gave last fall, I would point out that we were running this program with the Venezuelans all last year. And nobody mentioned it that -- at that point.

And I further would point out to those who say these -- you know, that I'm being used as a propaganda arm of -- for the Venezuelans, look, at the end of the day, if you have a problem with the fact that the Venezuelans are providing the poor of the United States with inexpensive heating oil, first of all, the Bush administration has supported it.

Secondly, we should recognize it. If that's what your problem is, then, you should have a problem with the entire 588 million barrels of oil that the Venezuelans sell to the United States every year.

BLITZER: Here is the problem that some Americans have. And...

KENNEDY: Sure.

BLITZER: And I'm not referring to a conservative or Republican. I'm referring to Charlie Rangel, a man you used to serve in the Congress with. He's a very liberal Democrat.

KENNEDY: Sure.

BLITZER: He's going to be the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a veteran. He represents a poor district in Harlem, as you also know. And they're grateful for any breaks they can get on heating oil.

But he issued a press release condemning Hugo Chavez because of this attack on President Bush, his personal attack, comparing him to the devil. Then, he was on this program, here in THE SITUATION ROOM, and he made this point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE SITUATION ROOM") REP. CHARLES RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: This is one country, whether we're Democrat or Republicans. And to come here, at the invitation of our people, and insult the president of the United States, you insult the flag; you insult the president; you insult the country; and you insult my constituents.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, he is pretty angry about all of this.

KENNEDY: Well, I mean, no one -- I'm certainly not going to defend the speech that President Chavez made in -- at the U.N.

I also don't, you know, support the fact that the Bush administration was -- had its hand in the attempted coup against President Chavez. I don't condone the -- that fact that one of President Bush's major contributors and supporters in this country called for President's Chavez assassination, long before those speeches.

So, there is a lot -- at the end of the day, Wolf, there's a lot of rhetoric that's way too hot on both sides. We have to remember, Venezuela -- in the OPEC oil embargoes against the United States, the only country that -- the OPEC country that continued to support the United States was Venezuela.

In our own revolution, they...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Well, that was long -- that was long before Hugo Chavez became the president.

KENNEDY: Well, but my point is that -- just that, that the relationship between the United States and Venezuela is a lot deeper than...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: It used to be a very strong relationship.

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: But it is -- it still is.

No, Wolf, wait. Hang on. Last year, GM and Ford sold 300,000 cars in Venezuela. We have imported 588 million barrels of oil. Should we say -- if you have got a problem with this, then, you should say, oh, no, Ford and GM, you can't sell any more cars down there. Oh, and, by the way, we shouldn't drive any cars that are using Venezuelan gasoline. We shouldn't fly any jets, whether they be "The Wall Street Journal"'s or anybody else's, that is using Venezuelan jet fuel. We shouldn't be using any trucks.

BLITZER: But...

KENNEDY: Oh, no. Come on, Wolf.

BLITZER: I'm not...

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: If it's goose -- good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

BLITZER: But...

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: So, don't just complain about a program that's helping the poor, and then give everyone that's helping the rich off the hook.

BLITZER: I...

KENNEDY: That's the dilemma.

BLITZER: I'm...

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: And that is what is unfair.

BLITZER: I'm not complaining about anything. I'm just asking some questions.

KENNEDY: Sure. Let's go.

BLITZER: Let me read -- let me read to you -- and I'm sure you saw that editorial in "The Wall Street Journal."

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: "In his eight years in power, Mr. Kennedy's business partner has also polarized Venezuela with his class warfare. Freedom House now ranks Venezuela's -- Venezuela 34th out of 35 countries in the Western Hemisphere in press freedom. Only the Cuban press is more repressed. But Mr. Kennedy keeps on trucking."

I know you saw the editorial. It was a very nasty editorial, directly accusing of you, in effect, of being a propaganda tool of Hugo Chavez.

KENNEDY: You know, I have had so many negative editorials written about me by "The Wall Street Journal." It's like water off the back.

You know, I -- it -- the -- that isn't the point, whether or not they attack me personally, or anything else. The crucial issue is whether or not we're going to say, we have, as a nation, a problem with Venezuela, because of a speech that the guy made, and so, therefore, we're going to cut off all business relationships with the Venezuelans. Or is it somehow righteous to say, no, let's just focus on the one country that is actually providing a little help and assistance to the poor, to help them pay their energy bills.

And, if that's the problem, then, what we should do is, we should say, we're going to stop dealing with them altogether. And, in that case, we shouldn't be using their oil. We shouldn't be having our banks operate in their country.

But why is it that I am the only focus of this? How come these discussions -- how come "Wall Street Journal" doesn't go after its own? How come they don't go after all the corporations that are making so much money out of the Venezuelans? How come they only went after a program that is designed to help? And it's a nonprofit.

We don't make a dime off of this. Everything gets passed through to the poor. So, my only point is, it's duplicitous. It is, you know, people who have power who are threatened, those who have the capitalist system, who are threatened by a kind of compassionate capitalism that looks out after the poor and the vulnerable.

That's what we're trying to do with Citizens Energy. And, if we can get some help and assistance from OPEC -- you know, I don't see the Saudi Arabians offering us this. I don't see the Kuwaitis offering us this. But I sure see an awful lot of business that goes on with these countries.

Why is it that it's just the -- the Venezuelans that we -- that we are content to go after?

BLITZER: All right.

KENNEDY: We're content to do it because it's easy. That's why "The Wall Street Journal" did it. It's easy.

(CROSSTALK)

KENNEDY: It's -- anyway, Wolf, that -- that's obviously my...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: I -- you know, I hear your argument.

You know, it's interesting. If you see behind you, near Fenway Park, you see a huge Citgo sign right behind you. It's a coincidence. We didn't deliberately put you in that location. But you can clearly see Citgo right behind you.

Why is it, though, that you have asked all these other oil companies, these oil-producing companies, to do what the Venezuelans, what Hugo Chavez and Citgo are ready to do, give a discounted price for poor people in the country? What is their response to you when you say, why not follow Hugo Chavez's lead?

KENNEDY: You know, Wolf, it really is eye-opening. They -- you get a letter back. I write to the CEOs of the companies. You get a letter back from a mid-level bureaucrat, saying, you know, that they're doing something to help out with some illness or some, you know, disease or something like that.

But, you know, Citgo gives $80 million to muscular dystrophy. Nobody is saying, hey, give the money back to muscular dystrophy. Then, when they give money to the Baseball Hall of Fame, nobody says, give money -- the money back to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

It's just when it helps the poor. Why -- Exxon Corporation, last year, in one quarter, made $10 billion. Their CEO himself made $1 billion. And, yet, what has he done? He's sat by and allowed the price of oil to skyrocket, from $25 a barrel to almost $60 or $70 a barrel. They haven't done a darn thing better.

BLITZER: All right.

KENNEDY: And, yet, what they're willing to do is take those profits, make themselves a boatload of money, and basically let the poor be damned. And that is just -- it doesn't feel right, Wolf. It just doesn't feel right.

BLITZER: Former Congressman Joe Kennedy, making his case, and doing it well, as usual, appreciate it very much.

KENNEDY: Nice to be with you, Wolf.

BLITZER: All right, good.

KENNEDY: Thank you.

BLITZER: I suspect, though, the story is not going to go away.

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!

Because without cervical cancer...

...how could anybody possibly encourage abstinence?

Next thing you know, someone will cure AIDS and there will be nothing preventing our teens from becoming Satan worshippers.

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.