Time to Choose Sides.

Late to the party on this, but some endorsements of note. The The Des Moines Register backs Hillary Clinton, as does former Senator and Bradley supporter Bob Kerrey (although Kerrey has some nice words for Obama as well.) Says the Register: “Obama, her chief rival, inspired our imaginations. But it was Clinton who inspired our confidence.” And, of course, former President Bill Clinton has been touting his wife more loudly than usual of late, including going so far as to disparage Obama on television.

Meanwhile, calling Clinton’s campaign “needlessly defensive” and “a backward glance at the bruising political battles of the 1990s,” the Boston Globe backs Barack Obama, citing his international experience, judgment, and — most happily — his progressive bona fides: “The first major bill to Obama’s name in the Illinois Legislature was on campaign ethics reform. In Washington, he coauthored this year’s sweeping congressional lobbying reform law…exposure [to government] has tended to give [Obama’s opponents] a sense of government’s constraints. Obama is more animated by its possibilities.“

Finally, while Mike Huckabee may have locked up the home-school crowd, both the Des Moines Register and Boston Globe back John McCain…as does — continuing his fall from Democratic grace — formerly Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. “The problems that confront us are too great, the threats we face too real, and the opportunities we have too exciting for us to play partisan politics with the presidency,” said Lieberman. Sigh…And he and Clinton seemed so close in their aghast GOP-lite moralism when they were blaming Grand Theft Auto for all America’s ills.

My Clinton Concerns | State of the Field.

“‘You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States,’ Clinton said. ‘But there is so much left to be done, and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes.'” Unfortunately, I missed the third Democratic debate at Howard University debate last night, so I can’t comment on the performances of Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al. I can say that this new NBC poll showing that 52% of the electorate wouldn’t consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances conforms to one of my major concerns with her nomination. As I said before, she’s a smart, talented, and impressive politico who’d undoubtedly sail the ship of state much more smoothly than the current administration. (Of course, so would you, I, the night-janitor at the local McDonalds, or almost anyone else one can think of.) But, really: [1] she’s thoroughly lousy on campaign finance reform, to my mind the issue that bears on virtually all others; [2] she apparently didn’t have the wherewithal or leadership instincts to realize the Iraq war was a terrible idea in 2003 (it didn’t take all that much to figure it out, particularly when you figure how much more information Clinton had access to than we did); [3] her view of centrism is apparently to act like Joe Lieberman every so often; and [4] most of the nation has already decided for various reasons that they don’t like her. With the Republicans scattered and in retreat, their ideology in eclipse, why do we keep throwing up marginal, tired candidates — Gore, Kerry, Clinton — on the off-chance that the electorate will manage to surmount their strong negatives, hold their collective nose, and vote for them?

To be fair, the other Dems haven’t been all that great at articulating a progressive alternative to Republican-lite DLC-ishness yet either, but at least there’s some potential for it there. Sen. Obama‘s got all the right JFK moves, and this all-things-to-all-people ambiguity may be one of his strongest political assets. But right now I think he’s relying too much on his initial spate of public goodwill, and missing a chance to really draw the nation’s attention to the issues that concern him. And John Edwards‘ son-of-a-millworker-made-good brand of populism, while laudable, doesn’t yet seem fully formed to me. But, at the very least, Edwards — unlike some of his more-willing-to-triangulate opponents — seems more often than not to let his flag fly, and act from the courage of his convictions. Right now, particularly with McCain hopelessly derailed by his blatant compromises of principle, Edwards may be the closest we’ve got to a Straight-Talk-Express this year (well, this side of Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul.)

At the moment, I’m still leaning towards Obama, just because of his tremendous upside — he, unlike virtually every other candidate, has the possibility to transform, revitalize, and realign our current political debate if he plays his cards right. But, Edwards is still in my estimation, and I’ll be taking a long hard look at him over the coming months (and either, in my humble opinion, are preferable to Senator Clinton, for the reasons listed above.)

The United States of Torture.

“We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration. They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.” Abu Ghraib becomes standard operating procedure as Dubya’s terror bill — horrifying as it is — passes the House 253-168 (roll call) and the Senate 65-34 (roll call.) Twelve Senate Dems (well, eleven Senate Dems and Lieberman) voted for the bill: Carper, Johnson, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Menendez, Nelson, Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, Stabenow. Chafee was the only Republican to vote against it, Snowe abstained.

Shameful, pitiful, demoralizing, pathetic. What else is there to say? As Rebecca Blood sums it up (via Medley): “We have lost the war on torture. It’s devastating.“

Joe Must Go.

“It surprised me…It seemed almost orchestrated. It’s sort of demeaning to the people of Connecticut…I thought the senator and the vice president were both wrong to use that attack (strategy) on the voters of Connecticut.” In the first full week of the post-primary race in Connecticut (Joe’s up five at the moment), Ned Lamont calls out Lieberman for his recent Cheneyisms. And, in related news, Russ Feingold asks Lieberman to get out of the race on ABC’s This Week: “Joe is showing with that regrettable statement that he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get it…Senator Lieberman has supported the Bush Administration’s disastrous strategic approach of getting us stuck in Iraq instead of focusing on those who attacked us.”

Nor’easter on the move.

“People around here are anxious and concerned not just about the national state of affairs, but also their personal state of affairs. As a Republican candidate, the challenge is to show you have even a clue about what their lives are like.” After surveying the terrain in Lamont country (which is larger than it looks), the WP finds GOP incumbents in serious trouble in the Northeast, namely New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.

Terror Firma.

A day after Scotland Yard announces it managed to prevent a major terrorist incident (with the help of Pakistan), terror is back on the menu here at home, with the GOP invoking 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 and Lieberman — absolutely wallowing in shamefulness now — actually calling Lamont’s recent victory a boon for plane-bombers. This was a terrifying near-event indeed — were it not for top-notch intel work by British authorities, the world might’ve experienced another horrific day akin to September 11 in very short order. But, look closely, and you’ll find this plot by homegrown British terrorists bears the likely marks of Al Qaeda, which, last I recall, we left somewhere near Afghanistan to go dink around in Iraq. Crossover Joe and the GOP can shout terror to the heavens, but the fact is that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda are more of a threat to us today because of Dubya’s non-sequitur Iraq sideshow. Make no mistake: America is less safe because Dubya and the neocons chose to cut and run in Tora Bora so they could prosecute their war of choice in Baghdad.

Joe’s Hill | From Loser to Embarrassment.

Is Lieberman’s MoJoe rising, or have Ned Lamont and his YouTube army stymied the Joementum for good? It’s decision time in Connecticut today, and the political world is watching with bated breath. My hope? Lamont in a walk. Update: As expected, Lieberman is defeated by a margin of 52-48%. Alas, after spewing forth some staggeringly self-serving GOP talking points about “partisan polarizers” in the Democratic Party (which several of the media glitterati are taking at face value), Lieberman has already announced his independent bid. Well, say hi to Zell for us on your way out of the party, Joe, and good riddance.

Glass Joe.

“What [Connecticut] tells us about the fall is something I think we’ve known all along, and that is the status quo in Iraq is unacceptable. It’s unacceptable to Democratic primary voters, it’s unacceptable to independents and it’s unacceptable to a large minority of Republicans. Iraq is the number one issue and the message is exceptionally simple: We cannot abide the status quo.” As Joe Lieberman likely nears the end of his days as a Democrat, Hillary, the DLC, and other centrist Dems prep for the fallout from the Connecticut primary.

Joementum Stalls.

And is dubious Democrat Joe Lieberman finished as well? (At least in the party, that is.) A new Quinnipac poll shows him trailing challenger Ned Lamont 51-47 for the first time in the Connecticut primary, which takes place August 8. (Although, loath to make the same mistake as his former running mate, Lieberman has the one and only Bill Clinton — a man who knows how to survive an inappropriate kiss or two — coming to town on Monday to campaign for him.) Update: Clinton makes the case.

Whence the Joementum?

“If Lamont has been unconventional and smart, Lieberman so far has been conventional and dumb.” Slate‘s John Dickinson reports in from the Connecticut Democratic primary, where Joe Lieberman is finding his pro-war Republicrat schtick isn’t playing too well with the Dem grass roots and amid the blogosphere. “The challenger clearly has the momentum. He’s doing so well that Lieberman has had discussions with political advisers about running in the general election as an independent.”