I'm surprised at the vitriol I've heard in the last few days (and especially tonight after the debate) about Bill Richardson's comments on Gonzales.  

For those who aren't familiar, Richardson trailed the other candidates in calling for a resignation, and when asked why he said: "The only reason I'm not there is because he's Hispanic, and I know him and like him...It's because he's Hispanic. I'm honest."

The new Democratic government in New Hampshire has got its act together and passed a civil unions bill.  While I find the whole notion of "civil unions" to be a scam designed in part to quell demands for actual marriage equality, it's still an important step.

I'm curious what effect people think this will have on the presidential campaign.  Is gay marriage going to be a wedge issue used against the Democrats?  Will any Democratic candidate get a backbone and call out those against civil unions for their bigotry?  And how do the various Democratic candidates feel about civil unions?  How long will it be before a serious presidential candidate decries the whole enterprise and makes the very simple point that being gay doesn't make you any less a person than someone else, meaning if anyone is allowed to get married, gay people should, too?

This is seriously unacceptable:

BECK: I don't want to sound like the old ball-and-chain guy, but Hillary Clinton cannot be elected president because -- am I wrong in feeling, am I the only one in America that feels this way? -- that there's something about her vocal range. There's something about her voice that just drives me -- it's not what she says, it's how she says it. She is like the stereotypical -- excuse the expression, but this is the way to -- she's the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean? She's that stereotypical, nagging, [unintelligible], you know what I mean? And she doesn't have to be saying -- she could be saying happy things, but after four years, don't you think every man in America will go insane? Is it just me? I mean, I know this is horrible to say, but I mean it not -- I would say this if she were Condi Rice and she sounded like that. Condi Rice doesn't have that grate to her voice. You know what I need to do? I need to talk to a vocal expert, because there is a range in women's voices that experts say is just the chalk, I mean, the fingernails on the blackboard. And I don't know if she's using that range or what it is, but I've heard her in speeches where I can't take it. [...]

BECK: Am I alone? Dan [Andros, producer]? Have you noticed that about her?  

ANDROS: Oh my gosh, she could be talking about how she's giving every American a million dollars, and I'm hearing, "Could you take out the garbage now, please?"

I strongly agree with Garance Franke-Ruta at TAPPED who notes that: "When Ann Coulter called heterosexual John Edwards a "faggot," the blogs erupted. But when someone calls the Democratic front-runner, who is female, a "bitch," we get total radio silence."  This is just as offensive, just as revealing of a bigoted attitude toward women, probably even moreso.  It is a clear attempt to imply that it's perfectly normal and justifiable to think that women have no place in politics because any time they grow powerful enough to be threatening, they must ipso facto be a stereotypical "bitch."

That such misogyny can come out of the mouth of a prominent political commentator with no apparent consequences is, frankly, disgusting.

You may not like Hillary Clinton's politics much, but if you let them get away with smearing her because she sounds threatening to their masculinity, you are doing a huge disservice to Democrats, progressives, women, and men.  We may criticize Hillary and we may or may not decide to nominate her, but she is part of our family, part of our society, a long-time and dedicated public servant, and an important example that women are powerful and meaningful political agents on their own terms.  And we will absolutely not stand to have her slandered like this.

With all the faux-bipartisanship going on these days in Washington, it's worth calling attention to one issue that truly deserves (and requires) bipartisan support: passing a new Farm Bill which rolls back the insane farm subsidies of the 2002 bill.

The Bush administration's proposal for the new bill was released today, and it includes cuts (albeit relatively weak ones).  Fiscal conservatives will support it, pro-trade folks on both sides of the aisle will support it, environmentalists will support it (especially if part of the deal for cutting direct subsidies is boosting things like the Conservation Security Program), and those who purport to care about the plight of billions of people in the global South who are forced to compete with US farm exports dumped onto their markets ought to support it.

You always hear that everyone has already made up their mind about Hillary Clinton. They either like her or hate her and there's no middle ground.

I'm not sure I believe that. For one, while I have made up my mind in the general sense (I like her and would be happy to vote for her), I definitely haven't come to any firm decision about her in relation to the other potential Democratic candidates.

Disclosure: My personal politics are way, way to the left of any of these folks on most issues. To some extent, that means I like people who go left regardless of other considerations. But it also means that I find the supposed differences in progressivism between any two "mainstream" candidates to be relatively minor. Accordingly, I tend to focus a lot on how the candidate is framing the issues, how they would help develop the Democratic Party over the long term, and how effective they would be at actually implementing policies. These things ultimately matter more to me than abstract progressive credentials.