The Video Revolution

"From the run up to Shock and Awe to last month's flurry of thrust-and-parry resolutions on Iraq, the junior senator from California has been one of the most consistent and vocal critics of the war. She voted no on the war in 2002 and co-sponsored the latest Kerry bill calling for our troops to be withdrawn by July 2007...

"So what is she doing heading up to Connecticut to stump for pro-war Joe Lieberman and against his anti-war challenger Ned Lamont?

"After all, Tailgunner Joe isn't just one of the staunchest supporters of the war, he's repeatedly and steadfastly spoken out against those who oppose it.

"'Retreat and defeat,' he said in speaking against the Kerry and Levin withdrawal plans on the floor of the Senate, 'would be terrible for the safety and security of the American people.' Indeed he was one of only six Democrats to vote against the withdrawal-lite Levin amendment. . . .

"Look, I understand the you-scratch-my-primary-run-and-I'll-scratch-yours ethos of sticking up for your fellow Senator -- what Jane Hamsher called 'the incumbency protection racket.' And this isn't a progressive purity test, accompanied by the expectation of lockstep liberalism. This isn't about Lieberman's GOP-friendly positions on tax cuts, affirmative action, the bankruptcy bill, the energy bill, the privatization of some parts of Social Security, and the right to question the president.

"At its core, the Lieberman-Lamont contest is about the war on Iraq. So how can Boxer strap on her Senate buddy blinders and jettison her deeply held beliefs on the defining issue of our time?"

Some online chatter about this New York Times piece on the state's highest court not allowing same-sex marriage:

The "court ruling against gay marriage was more than a legal rebuke, then -- it came as a shocking insult to gay rights groups. Leaders said they were stunned by both the rejection and the decision's language, which they saw as expressing more concern for the children of heterosexual couples than for the children of gay couples. They also took exception to the ruling's description of homosexuality as a preference rather than an orientation."

Andrew Sullivan gives the article two thumbs down:

"I have to say that this 'news analysis' in the NYT of the court decisions in New York and Georgia is one of the dumbest pieces of journalism I have read in a very long time. 'For Gay Rights Movement, A Key Setback'? In some ways, I think the New York Court of Appeals decision will help, rather than hurt, the cause of marriage equality in the long run. Why? Because it will force the issue into legislatures, where it is best tackled, and where we will eventually win, and in one case, California, have already won. The courts have already done their job - in forcing this issue into the national consciousness, highlighting the grave injustice, correcting it in one state out of fifty, and allowing us to make such great headway in persuading people of our cause.

"The basic argument made by the New York court is also not inherently damaging to the gay case. It's simply saying that the law is not on its face irrational (although it's deeply unpersuasive), and so the issue is for the legislature, not the court. What the New York court is essentially saying is: you have a case. You just made it to the wrong guys. Talk to the legislature."

In fairness, though, the Times quoted the head of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force as calling the decision "callous and insulting to gay people."

Lots of people spanking the senior senator from Delaware, but not Michelle Malkin :

"Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is over Joe Biden's remark about Indian-Americans operating 7-11 and Dunkin' Donut stores in Delaware. There are plenty of reasons to roll your eyes when Biden opens his mouth. This doesn't make my list. It is a fact that a lot of Indian-Americans own such franchises (which screen employees to ensure they are here legally, by the way). No reason to get the vapors over his clumsy little crack making that basic observation.

"Goes without saying, of course, that if the comments came out of a GOP senator's mouth, the NYTimes and company would go ape."