The hostage crisis at the Clinton campaign in New Hampshire is now over. All of the hostages were released unharmed. It is not clear if the hostage taker is in custody or if there is still a standoff. (OpenLeft has some good discussion on the events)

The U.S. has withdrawn a UN resolution praising the new Israeli/Palestinian peace talk goals. While this may be a simple understanding, from what Israel has been saying they seem to want to keep the UN out of the process. For those of us who believe the UN must be involved in an eventual deal for it to work, this is a disheartening setback.

28 retired generals plan to release a letter to Congress urging them to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Just goes to show you that there really is no such thing as a dead issue.

From The Blogs

Jeffrey Feldman attempts to explain why Republicans continually nominate candidates who trample on their own values. It's a great questions. My personal theory (and I can't claim that I'm the creator): Republican voters elect people who they can trust to vote the right way. What they do on their personal time doesn't matter, as long as they vote the right way.

Vemrion takes on corporate influence on government and comes to the conclusion that corporations aren't just persons, they are super-persons! And he might be right.

Robert Ellman at the Intrepid Liberal Journal has a great interview with former reservist and conscientious objector Aidan Delgado. Highly recommended!

Video Of The Day

So this is how those videos got picked for the YouTube debates. They had to be, "umm…interesting…" These people are idiots.

What's on your mind this Friday afternoon? This is an open thread.

For this week's poll, with Seminal readers and writers so skeptical about a solution to the Israel/Palestine problem (96% of respondents said we won't see any progress on a peace deal before Bush leaves office when we polled last), will the Israelis and Palestinians stick to the commitments they made during the Annapolis conference? But first, last week's results:

Last week, we asked you about your Republican primary pick. Last time we ran a Republican straw poll back in June, Ron Paul won with 60% of the vote. This time (surprise!) Ron Paul again won, but with only 53% of the vote. Of course, most of the rest of the votes were for the option that said the respondent wasn't voting in the Republican primary. No other Republican candidate managed to get more than 4% of Seminal reader support. As we all know, Ron Paul's supporters are big online, and so the results of our online poll are no surprise. I wouldn't be surprised if Paul won the actual New Hampshire primary as well.

This week, as the Annapolis Middle East peace conference winds down, do you think Israel and Palestine will stick to their commitments to fashion a solution to their problem by the end of 2008? Voting begins in the sidebar at right.

Sex sure does get a lot of attention, and, in this case, rightfully so, since, as others have so ably reported, Rudolph Giuliani tried to hide fiscal evidence of his tryst with Judi Nathan by billing his security detail and travel expenses to several obscure New York City agencies. We now also know that Giuliani assigned his mistress her own city car and driver at NYC taxpayer expense. All very improper, if not, as yet, proved to be specifically illegal.

But, if we all can take our eyes off of America’s little mayor for a minute, we might see something that is more overtly against the law.

Buried in Ben Smith’s original story, posted Wednesday on Politico, is a brief mention of similar, non-Hamptons-related travel, most of which “also was billed to obscure agencies.”

[NYC Comptroller Bill] Thompson also warned that travel costs had increased by 151 percent in Giuliani's final fiscal year, to more than $618,000, a number which also includes police security on campaign swings for Giuliani’s abortive 2000 Senate run and trips to Los Angeles by Donna Hanover, who remained Giuliani's wife and the city's official first lady, in the fall of 2000.

That New York City’s mayor was billing the city for travel related solely to his campaign struck me as odd and wrong, but since the article made no further mention of this, I, like everyone, returned my attention to the sex. But, on Thursday, Smith again made reference to the campaign travel during an appearance on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show, this time adding a little more detail (I transcribed the audio, leaving out some cross-talk):

Ben Smith: The total of expenses. . . include expenses related to his 2000 campaign for senate—some of the upstate travel for that campaign—the total is between four-hundred and five-hundred thousand dollars, but a lot of that is not the trips to the Hamptons. . . .

Brian Lehrer: You’re not saying that city taxpayers footed the bill for his political senate campaign trips, are you?

BS: Yes.

BL: Yes?

BS: Yes. His chief of staff told me yesterday that they had offered to reimburse the NYPD and the NYPD wouldn’t accept reimbursement for security on those trips.

To refresh and recap: Prohibited from standing for New York City mayor a third time because of term limits, Giuliani was actively exploring a run for the Senate before a combination of prostate cancer, a bitter divorce, an ugly police shooting, bad poll trends, and personal disinterest caused him to abort his campaign in May of 2000. Before that, however, while serving as mayor of NYC, Giuliani made campaign swings upstate. Expenses for that campaign-related travel were billed to New York City, even though these trips presumably had nothing to do with Rudy’s responsibilities as mayor. That the Giuliani team felt these expenses should not be charged to city taxpayers seems clear, since Giuliani’s chief of staff reportedly told Smith that they had offered to reimburse the NYPD.

In the contest between Republican frontrunners Rudy “I (heart) Judy” Giuliani and Mitt “Double Git” Romney to prove who is more innately xenophobic and racist, last night’s round goes to Mitt.

I know Giuliani thought he was going to win the day when he jabbed at Romney for allowing “Illegal immigrants” to mow his lawn, but Romney scored with a counterpunch that could have only originated deep down in his solar plexus:

Giuliani: There was even a sanctuary mansion. At his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed, not being turned into anybody or by anyone. And then when he deputized the police, he did it two weeks before he was going to leave office, and they never even seemed to catch the illegal immigrants that were working at his mansion. So I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city.

Romney: Mayor, you know better than that.

(Laughter)

Giuliani: No …

Romney: OK, then listen. All right? Then listen. First of all …

Giuliani: You did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?

Romney: No, I did not, so let's just talk about that. Are you suggesting, Mr. Mayor — because I think it is really kind of offensive actually to suggest, to say look, you know what, if you are a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home — paint the home, put on the roof. If you hear someone that is working out there, not that you have employed, but that the company has.

If you hear someone with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, "I want to see your papers."

Is that what you're suggesting?

Funny accent? I gotta think that the Detroit-born son of a Mexican-born father probably sounded a little funny to his former constituents in South Boston, but if that’s how Mitt feels in his gut, give him big bigot points for letting it gurgle out.

It was a special moment.

While the Democratic debates have been a relative waste of time with the likes of Timmeh! and Wolfie spending half the time trying to provoke fights between Senators Clinton and Obama, I honestly think all of America should be exposed to some of these Republican tussles. Everyone should hear what passes for statesmanship, morality, and leadership in the bowls of the GOP. With the far more eclectic and ecumenical American electorate, it can only do Republicans harm—so it can only do America good.

(cross posted at guy2k)

In the wake of the Annapolis summit Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed Israelis on the dangers of allowing the conflict between their state and Palestine to continue without resolution.

"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Olmert told the Israeli daily Haaretz. As justification for his comment, he pointed to the likelihood that a rift with the Pro-Israelis in the US that would result if "equal voting rights for all its [Israel's] residents" are not realized. In the process, he implied that crumbling support in the US would be the nation's undoing.

There is much to recommend his point. Without the United States as an ally, Israel's position would become more tenuous, its hostile neighbors more provocative. Without a strong political base among US citziens, politicians would have less incentive to be the staunch supporters of Israel they have historically been. A hostile, or even indifferent, stance towards Israel is currently political suicide for many Washingtonians. A significant drop in US citizens' support for Israel changes that scenario.

Nevertheless, there is a serious flaw in Olmert's line of reasoning: support for Israel is forged from much stronger ties than he acknowledges. Few would break, or, in my opinion, even waver in their support if became clear that the repression of Palestinians would continue indefinitely.

Olmert, however, has good reason to paint the picture as he does — it deflects criticism over his participation in the talks, and offers the stakes in a dramatic fashion. It is also correct, but not because a collapse of the two-state solution would erode support in the US. Rather, it would further ignite an already restive portion of the world.

The most compelling part of this statement, however, is not its truth or falsity. It lies in the analogy made.

Olmert's mention of South Africa is significant. While many pro-Palestinians have compared the apartheid of South Africa to the Israeli-Palestinian situation, I have never heard a pro-Israeli individual, let alone the Prime Minister, bring the two together so directly in the same sentence (though Olmert delicately gave a similar view in an interview four years ago, linked in the Haaretz article).

His acknowledgment that the continued repression of Palestinians may lead to a "South African-style struggle" (ie, a struggle that pits freedom vs. violent, racist oppression) prompts the question — why would the decades-old struggle change in definition with the passage of more time and the loss of the small bit of autonomy granted to the PLO through the Oslo accords?

To me, it seems an acknowledgment that there is something inherently unjust in the way Palestinians are being treated at present. A situation does not become comparable to apartheid simply by failing to achieve what has never been. It must have already, always displayed elements of the system. I am sure there are many others do not interpret the quote as I do, and many who will immediately dismiss Olmert's comments, but if one admits that Olmert's comment is germane, I see no other conclusion.

What do you think?

In Pakistan, dressed in sombre civilian attire, President Musharraf was sworn in today for his second five-year term as president, after doffing his military uniform yesterday. Showing his mad double-speak skills, Musharraf "warned foreign diplomats assembled for the ceremony not to force democracy and human rights on developing countries, but to let them evolve in their own time." That's right, Pervez, we shouldn't force people to do things because that's what we want; we should let them act freely just like you allowed the Supreme Court justices and opposition leaders to protest your regime.

Riot police deployed to the troubled suburbs of north Paris have been able to curb what has been termed the worst violent rioting in Paris since 2005. Some cite social problems, Sarkozy blames "thugocracy".

After 7 years of inaction with respect to negotiations in the Middle East, the Bush administration seems to have rededicated itself to achieving peace in the region as Olmert, Abbas and Bush met for a third consecutive day.

Is Putin the only candidate who matters in Russia's upcoming elections?

A seven-hour standoff at the Peninsula Manila hotel in Makati City, ended with the arrest of several people, reports the NY Times.

The Saudis seem to be playing number games with militants. Today, on Monday, they released 1,500 militants they felt had renounced their extremism, but today, they detained over 200 militants with alleged plans to attack the oil industry's infrastructure,

Presidential Politics
What about Darfur? It seems Republican candidates forgot to mention a few things during last night's debate. Foreign Policy has a list compiled; or you can search for your own "hot topics" using the New York Times' transcript analysis tool. I *heart* technology.

Although Islamist extremism is central to any discussion of U.S. foreign policy, Mitt Romney admits it would not be "justified" to give a cabinet position to a Muslim because they are a minority in America. Granted, faith alone does not qualify one to hold a cabinet position, but Romney's categorical dismissal does complicate the Mormon candidate's views on the relationship between religion and good governance.

Name calling, nasty attacks and insults, oh my! With less than a year to go before election day and dates for the primaries fast-approaching, tempers are heating in the Republican arena.

Hot Topic: Who controls information and the Internet?
Prompted by J-Ro's recent post on the CNN's desire to spoon-feed the nation with information, rather than encouraging analysis, investigation and democratic processes and recent reports about YouTube suspending the account of Egyptian human rights activist Wael Abbas, who uses YouTube to disseminate information about state-sponsored torture and rights' violations, I want to know where our readers stand on issues of information-gathering and the Internet

If you have any thoughts on the relationship between the Internet and news media, share 'em below? If you worry about corporate policies destroying net neutrality, let us know. If you think the Internet should be a free and fair place for the dissemination and discussion of information, join the conversation! Comments are welcome; this is an open thread.

I wrote this for the Free Press Action Network on Tuesday. Check them out.

Last Sunday I created this facebook group to build opposition to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's proposal to further deregulate media. The description was simple:

We need your help to stop the FCC from implementing a rule change that would amount to the most egregious act of media consolidation since the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Stand up for access to diverse sources of information. Contact the FCC and your Senators today to voice your opposition to further consolidation of American media.

In less than 10 days, the group is already nearing 2500 members.

(This post is part of the MyDD candidate series. I am not affiliated with the Dodd campaign in any way.)

Media consolidation is an issue of personal importance to me. I believe in getting to the root cause of problems, and a root cause of the proliferation of misinformation, misleading political memes, and badly framed arguments is the fact that our nation's mainstream media, which still provides the majority of the American public with their news and information, is owned by too few people.

Media consolidation matters. Today, just five corporations control the majority of news that most Americans see. Is it any surprise, then, that the media can sell us lies about Iraq, health care, or social security? Yet despite its crucial importance, this issue sneaks by under the radar of far too many campaigns.

Rolling back media consolidation will do wonders for our democracy. It will ensure that people have diverse viewpoints that they can turn to for their news. It will give those without voices more representation in our media landscape. It will prevent political attacks masquerading as news from ever gaining credibility (see Swift Boat Veterans For Truth).

Once again, CNN failed the American people. The "YouTube debates" were supposed to embody a revolution of online democracy. But they failed to broaden the argument around the issues or even truly grasp what online democracy is all about.

Last time CNN held a YouTube debate, I accused them of misrepresenting America's youth:

[The debates] were targeted towards the youth in America and designed to bring out new viewpoints and presentations that don’t usually get airtime on mainstream media outlets. People who submitted questions were asked to be creative, personal, and focused. In truth, the set up seemed promising, and I feel that many politically active young people were very hopeful that in this debate, their views would be heard. The videos chosen by CNN, however, failed to broaden the issues, and instead misrepresented the youth of America badly.

Tonight, I'm convinced CNN did worse than that. By heavily moderating the questions, and by deliberately choosing silly, fluffy, or offbeat videos to show the nation, CNN is reinforcing the old media idea that the Internet entertains, but does not offer real, serious discussion or insight.

On Monday, the International Crisis Group released a new report on Darfur, emphasizing the need for broader talks involving groups like women and Arab tribes, as well as the need for greater international involvement and pressure.

In Pakistan, Musharraf has stepped down as military chief.

Is the real agenda at Annapolis to combat Iran's regional influence?

The Middle East peace conference here on Tuesday was officially about ending the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. But there was an unspoken goal just below the surface: stopping the rising regional influence of Iran and Islamic radicalism.

That is why, despite enormous skepticism about the ability of the Israelis and Palestinians to reach a final peace treaty, there is enormous relief among the many Sunni Arab countries in attendance that the United States has re-engaged in what they see as the larger and more important battle for Muslim hearts and minds.

"The Arabs have come here not because they love the Jews or even the Palestinians," said an adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They came because they need a strategic alliance with the United States against Iran."

Putin pledges that Russia's upcoming elections will be honest, but warns foreigners to butt out.

The Agonist makes some predictions about the economic situation post-"bubble."

Bradblog suggests that Larry Flynt may be more powerful than Trent Lott.

This is an open thread.