HorsesAss.Org

Gov. Chris Gregoire released a statement late this afternoon, clarifying her position on former Gov. Booth Gardner’s assisted suicide initiative:

“The initiative filed today by Governor Gardner offers a very personal, individual decision for Washington voters to consider should it qualify for the November ballot. I want to clarify that I will not actively oppose this initiative. It is not my place to impose my morality on others.”

So I guess in the battle between me and Lee in parsing the governor’s words, I win. So there.

UPDATE [Lee]: Goldy, you win this round. But everyone here’s a winner when Crackpiper says things this dumb:

By stepping aside, she is imposing her ammorality.

We could probably train a monkey to keep us this entertained, but we’d still have to feed it. Thank you so much, Crackpiper. Everyone else, keep an eye on EffU this weekend.

What?! Lee voted for Dino Rossi?!!! I never knew. I guess that’s just one of those uncomfortable questions that never comes up in polite society… you know, like, “Do you find your sister sexy?” or “Who’s your favorite actor on the sit-com Two and a Half Men?”

As for his anti-Gregoire screed, Lee warned me last night that he had this particular post in the hopper, giving me the opportunity to edit or nix it in advance, but I chose not to even read it before it went live. Lee has the same deal here as the rest of my HA co-bloggers: he can write on whatever he wants whenever he wants, and in exchange, I can yank his posting privileges without warning. Nobody edits me, and I’m not about to edit them. I always knew Lee was one of those weird libertarianish kinda guys, and I never expected to agree with everything he posted, but he’s a sharp analyst and an entertaining writer, and that’s exactly what we shoot for here on HA.

But, you know, it is possible to go too far.

The impetus for Lee’s post is Gov. Gregoire’s comment on former Gov. Booth Gardner’s proposed assisted suicide initiative: “I find it on a personal level, very, very difficult to support assisted suicide.” To Lee, the governor’s position is hypocritical or worse:

I find it extremely difficult to understand how a person can see abortion as a fundamental right, but also see the right for a terminally ill individual to control their own death as being subject to other people’s moral qualms.

[…] As I was researching this post and looking for Gregoire’s past statements on abortion, you’ll find that it’s nearly impossible to find statements directly from her that affirm her support for a woman’s right to choose. In fact, this page reports that she told Archbishop Brunett in the meeting referenced above that as a Catholic, she was “against abortion.” At this point, I have no idea who’s really telling the truth. But what I do know is that if she really is pro-choice, her stance on assisted suicide clearly makes her a hypocrite. If I had to guess, I’d say her stance on assisted suicide is the real Gregoire and her pro-choice position is a pander.

I wholeheartedly agree with Lee in supporting assisted suicide legislation, but I think he jumps to conclusions regarding Gov. Gregoire’s position, and in general fails to display his usual sense of nuance. Gov. Gregoire told reporters that “on a personal level” she finds it difficult to support assisted suicide — but that doesn’t necessarily mean she would actively oppose Gov. Gardner’s initiative. Likewise, I find no hypocrisy in an elected official personally being “against abortion” yet fully supporting a woman’s legal right to choose. In fact, I’ve always assumed that as a practicing Catholic Gov. Gregoire accepts her church’s teaching that abortion under any circumstance is a sin. The significant difference between Rossi and Gregoire on this issue is that he would seek to impose his own morality through force of law, whereas she would not.

Without a doubt, the modern American politician I admire most is former Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, a liberal icon and a devout Catholic who spoke thoughtfully and eloquently on this very issue. It has been well over a decade since I last read the text of the speech he gave at the University of Notre Dame on September 13, 1984 — “Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor’s Perspective” — but with the GOP having since transformed itself into the Pro-Life Party and the defender of a Christianist America, Gov. Cuomo’s remarks are more pertinent now than ever. In this speech the governor reveals himself to be profoundly reverent of unborn life, and yet he distinguishes between his private role as a Catholic and his role as a public official:

As Catholics, my wife and I were enjoined never to use abortion to destroy the life we created, and we never have. We thought Church doctrine was clear on this, and – more than that – both of us felt it in full agreement with what our hearts and our consciences told us. For me, life or fetal life in the womb should be protected, even if five of nine Justices of the Supreme Court and my neighbor disagree with me. A fetus is different from an appendix or a set of tonsils. At the very least, even if the argument is made by some scientists or some theologians that in the early stages of fetal development we can’t discern human life, the full potential of human life is indisputably there. That – to my less subtle mind – by itself should demand respect, caution, indeed…reverence.

But not everyone in our society agrees with me and Matilda.

[…]The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.

I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or non-believer, or as anything else you choose.

We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us.

I do not ask Gov. Gregoire or any other politician to endorse my moral perspective or keep silent on their own, I only expect that they respect my right to act on my perspective freely. Likewise, I don’t expect Gov. Gregoire to hold the same legislative priorities as I do, and given the political reality, even a legislative attempt at codifying assisted suicide would not only be unlikely, it would almost certainly come back to voters in the form of a referendum. Gov. Gregoire was asked about assisted suicide and she honestly answered that “on a personal level” she would find it very difficult to support. I have no problems with that as long as she does not use the power and influence of her office to oppose the initiative.

As for Lee’s further critique, that Gov. Gregoire ran “a hollow campaign with no ideas,” and “nearly always reverts to the most authoritarian solutions”… well… I think he overstates the situation. She did not run a very compelling campaign in 2004 (hence Rossi’s near victory) and she’s not the kind of progressive champion most of us bloggers would prefer. But overall, within the pragmatic scheme of things, she’s been a good governor… and certainly far, far better than the alternative.

Lee voices regrets over his protest vote for Rossi, but says that at this point he can’t vote for Gregoire either. On this point and others, Lee is wrong. But as long as he doesn’t try to impose his beliefs on me, I’ll gladly permit him to continue posting his wrong beliefs here on HA.

Following up on yesterday’s post re Richard Conlin seeking to renew the Pro Parks Levy over the mayor’s dead body, a newly formed coalition is organizing to promote funding of a broad range of green initiatives, from bicycling to tree preservation. The idea behind the Green Legacy for All Levy is to set up a formal citizens committee to oversee financing of green projects including but extending beyond parks, while making the process far less volatile and unilateral than Parks Department jurisdiction of the past. It’s early for details, including the amount sought (Pro Parks was just shy of $200 million), but several community groups have endorsed the spirit of the endeavor and it will get further airing at a number of upcoming events, including a public forum moderated by Open Space Seattle 2100’s Brice Maryman at the downtown library at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, Jan. 17th. For now the effort is coordinating with Council member Tom Rasmussen, chair of the newly rejiggered Parks and Seattle Center Committee. The vice chair: None other than Richard Conlin.

Jerry Cornfield writes about the effort by former Governor Booth Gardner to bring Oregon’s assisted suicide law to Washington. His “Death with Dignity” initiative will be filed this morning at 10am.

Oregon’s law has functioned as expected since its inception 10 years ago. Despite the howling of those who claimed that the law would lead to mass suicides, only a tiny fraction of Oregonians take advantage of this law each year to legally end their lives on their own terms. Unfortunately, as David Postman reports, this initiative will have opposition from the Governor’s office:

Gov. Chris Gregoire is talking to reporters in Olympia. She was just asked her position on the assisted suicide initiative that former Gov. Booth Gardner will file tomorrow. Gardner, who has Parkinsons, has been a mentor to Gregoire. Gregoire’s voice cracked when she answered the question:

“I love my friend Booth Gardner and my heart goes out to his condition and what he’s had to face. He was my motivation for the Life Sciences Discovery Fund. I pray every day that we will find a cure. But I find it on a personal level, very, very difficult to support assisted suicide.”

That’s interesting, because back in 2004, when she was running for governor, the following appeared in the Seattle PI:

State Attorney General Christine Gregoire, the leading Democratic candidate for governor, said she does not see a conflict between her Catholic faith and protecting abortion rights, said Morton Brilliant, her press secretary.

Gregoire is “deeply faithful and also strongly committed to a woman’s right to choose,” Brilliant said. “And she believes a woman’s right to choice is a fundamental right.”

Directly bucking [Seattle Archbishop Alex] Brunett’s edict, he added that Gregoire does not believe abortion is immoral.

“(Gregoire) does not see her role as governor as requiring her to impose her faith on the entire state,” he said. “Washington is clearly a pro-choice state, Gregoire will not shy away from that belief and will not waver in her support of that right.”

[Emphasis mine]

I find it extremely difficult to understand how a person can see abortion as a fundamental right, but also see the right for a terminally ill individual to control their own death as being subject to other people’s moral qualms.

I catch some grief from my friends for having voted for Dino Rossi in 2004, but it’s days like this (and there have been many recently) that remind me why I just couldn’t fill in that circle next to Gregoire’s name. She ran a hollow campaign with no ideas and has since become a governor that nearly always reverts to the most authoritarian solutions, rather than being concerned with the state constitution, the rights of Washington State citizens, or even the foreseeable results of her actions. In almost everything we’ve seen, she seems more interested in doing the symbolic than the sensible.

As I was researching this post and looking for Gregoire’s past statements on abortion, I found that it’s nearly impossible to find statements directly from her that affirm her support for a woman’s right to choose. In fact, this page reports that she told Archbishop Brunett in the meeting referenced above that as a Catholic, she was “against abortion.” At this point, I have no idea who’s really telling the truth. But what I do know is that if she really is pro-choice, her stance on assisted suicide clearly makes her a hypocrite. If I had to guess, I’d say her stance on assisted suicide is the real Gregoire and her pro-choice position is a pander.

Dino Rossi is the only openly anti-choice politician I’ve ever voted for in my life, and as the election was unimaginably close, I became overly concerned about casting what was essentially a protest vote over Gregoire’s lethargic campaign that could’ve been the deciding vote in the entire election. After watching the entire Republican Party establishment act like a bunch of toddlers in the months after the election, I seriously doubt I can vote for Rossi again – but at this point, I can’t vote for Gregoire either. As the Bush era collapses into itself and gives Democrats incredible gains in Washington DC, we’re heading into a new progressive era where civil liberties actually matter again to voters, but this November Washington State residents won’t have anyone on the ballot who reflects these values.

UPDATE: Back in October, the Seattle Times had a nice story of someone in Oregon who took advantage of their right to choose.

Once again, the affairs of the world ground to a halt yesterday in solemn observance of a small American state voting for presidential nominees. The results (with 96% of precincts counted):

Democrats

Hillary Clinton 39.2%
Barack Obama 36.4%
John Edwards 16.9%
Bill Richardson 4.6%
Dennis Kucinich 1.4%
Others 1.4%
Mike Gravel 0.1%

Republicans

John McCain 37.2%
Mitt Romney 31.6%
Mike Huckabee 11.2%
Rudy Giuliani 8.6%
Ron Paul 7.6%
Others 2.0%
Fred Thompson 1.2%
Duncan Hunter 0.5%\

Me, I’m getting kind of sick of media’s attempt to create instant, sweeping generalizations on the basis of first Iowa, now New Hampshire. Clinton led NH polls all last year, and McCain was expected to win; now, somehow, they are the “comeback kids.” Clinton “escapes to fight another day” with her “return from the political dead,” even though only an idiot thought that her $100 million campaign would have been finished off by a second-place finish — just as nobody should write off Obama now. And Edwards is now the one being written off, for having finished pretty much exactly where the last year’s worth of polls had him. Bollocks. Same thing on the Republican side, where the Beltway punditocracy has been desperate to portray a McCain “surge” since the barbarian (i.e., Mike Huckabee) won in Iowa. Now that McCain (aka “Lazarus”) has performed as expected, someone, somewhere, will opine that his nomination is inevitable. (One thing’s for sure: Fred Thompson sure doesn’t seem like much of a threat.)

And establishment journalists wonder why the public hates them.

In other, lesser news yesterday, President Bush quietly attempted to remind people that he’s still relevant.

Locally, beyond you-know-what, the P-I brings us the shocking news that area home prices have dropped (shocking, that is, if you’ve been relying on the local dailies for your information for the last six months), and asks the burning question: “Have prices hit bottom?” (The P-I doesn’t risk an answer, so here’s one: No.) The Times also has the story, natch. Bothell’s Best also gives us Nicole Brodeur, with the sort of incisive analysis she’s renowned for: Sometimes pit bulls bite people. Sometimes they don’t.

Local TV is, unsurprisingly, even worse. KING-5 set the standard last night; their top four stories were about crime.

Give the P-I credit, though, for a priceless photograph of Port Commissioner Pat Davis in the blandly titled “Port of Seattle enacts reforms.” Nothing like a criminal investigation to perk ’em up, huh?

With 24% 25% 26% of the precincts counted, Hillary Clinton is leading Barack Obama 40% 39% to 34% 35% 36%. I suppose it’s still early, and Obama could still squeak out a victory… but either way, Clinton wins. The polling over the past few days predicted a big win for Obama, but as Bill Clinton predicted early in the day, it’s gonna be a lot closer than expected. Nobody’s gonna count Clinton out after tonight.

I’ll be live blogging throughout the night, updating well, whenever I feel like it.

UPDATE 6:39 PM:
Clinton 39%, Obama 36% with 48% of the vote counted. Curiously, in checking for the most up to date results I’ve discovered that the TV network’s websites are lagging significantly behind the broadcasts. Hmm. Intentional?

UPDATE 7:32 PM:
NBC just called it for Clinton. So I guess I should replace the question mark in the headline with an exclamation point, huh?

UPDATE 7:34 PM:
Nick just took the remote away from Andrew.

UPDATE 7:45 PM:

Hillary Clinton	67,828
Barack Obama	62,736
John McCain	52,142
Mitt Romney	43,920
John Edwards	29,126
Mike Huckabee	16,233
Rudy Giuliani	12,146
Ron Paul	11,157
Bill Richardson	8,212
Dennis Kucinich	2,478
Fred Thompson	1,696
Duncan Hunter	723

With about 65% of precincts reporting, the big news tonight is in the race between candidates with hot, much younger wives, where Dennis Kucinich clearly kicks Fred Thompson’s ass.

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of political pontification and primary punditry under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally.

The official event begins at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Some of us will show up around 5PM to catch the early returns out of New Hampshire.

Tonight’s theme song: Live and Let Die by Paul McCartney and Wings, with a mash-up of a song by Free. (Definitely not All Right Now, however.)

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

New Yorker Political columnist Hendrik Hertzberg writes about the National Popular Vote plan.

The National Popular Vote plan is the state compact that, if enacted by enough states, would have member states award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Essentially, the plan is a constitutional way of creating a national popular vote without the difficulties of amending the U.S. Constitution. The National Popular Vote plan has been championed by Dr. John R. Koza, who is Chairman of National Popular Vote Inc.

Hertzberg looks at Koza’s research into the “wrong winner” problem, in which the winner of the electoral college vote loses the popular vote (like happened in 2000). Koza uses national head-to-head general election polls and compares them to state head-to-head polls. Hertzberg writes:

A 2000-style disaster for democracy could easily befall us again this year, as Koza has just written an interesting analysis to show.

By compiling state-by-state polling data, Darryl Holman, a University of Washington social scientist, has run eight mock general-election pair-ups between Democratic and Republican candidates, showing who would win and who would lose in the Electoral College if the election were held today. What Koza has done is to compare Holman’s findings with a calculation of what the national popular vote would be, using national polls taken in the same time periods.

Koza’s startling finding: In three out of Holman’s eight head-to-head face-offs, the national popular-vote winner loses the electoral vote—and with it, of course, the mock election.

(Hey…I’m glad someone found those analyses useful!)

Hertzberg provides Koza’s entire analysis.

It is hard to argue in favor of our current system of electing our Presidents via the winner-take-all Electoral College approach. (Well…ignoring the “It’s how we’ve always done it!” argument, anyway.) Two hundred years ago the system might have made some sense, but today we really should be electing the President through a popular vote.

One thing is certain though…the Electoral College is not going to go away anytime soon. But since the Constitution give the states control over how electors are selected, the National Popular Vote compact (if enacted by enough states to control the majority of the Electoral College votes) would effectively and legally create a popular vote for President. And with no need to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Think of the advantages to this system…. First, candidates will no longer spend the vast majority of their time pandering to a few important swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Right now, a voter in Ohio has far more influence in electing the President than you have. It just shouldn’t be so. In an ideal democracy, every person’s vote should carry the same weight.

A popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign more broadly so as to reach as many voters as possible. It would mean that candidates visiting Washington for fundraising would actually engage in this activity called campaigning. Imagine that…Washington state no longer being treated like an ATM machine!

Finally, a popular vote gets rid of the embarrassing (albeit rare) situation—like we saw in 2000—where the loser of the popular vote ends up being President.

The Washington state legislature is about to take up work on a National Popular Vote bill:

The 10 legislative sponsors of the National Popular Vote bill in Washington State include Representatives Joe McDermott, Shirley Hankins, Mark Miloscia, Mike Armstrong, Fred Jarrett, and Tom Campbell and Senators Eric Oemig, Darlene Fairley, Craig Pridemore, and Jeanne Kohl-Welles. The House bill is HB 1750 (Status of HB 1750), and the Senate bill is SB 5628 (Status of SB 5628).

If you like the idea of Washington state participating in the compact, contact your Washington state Senator and Representatives. Here is a good place to start.

To learn more about the progress of the compact in other states, visit the National Popular Vote web site.

(Cross-posted at Hominid Views.)

At yesterday’s reception following his election as president of the City Council, I asked Richard Conlin what his biggest challenge was for the coming year. He cited renewal of the city’s Pro Parks Levy, first passed in November 2000. When I observed that the mayor had shown little interest in re-upping, Conlin said, “He doesn’t like the idea.” Conlin has made no secret of his desire to see more backbone from the Council, and now his undertaking has a hot-button issue.

You don’t have to look very far around Seattle to see the benefits of the $198.2 million levy. Virtually every city park has gotten some enhancement, whether it be murals, new bathrooms or a near-makeover such as daylighting Ravenna. But the process has been frequently contentious, with open-space advocates, civic activists and neighborhood groups butting heads with Parks Department officials over insidious commercialization, including plastic grass, leasing of public buildings to private entities and favoring money-making organized athletics over more traditional but non-revenue producing uses. Parks policies have proven a flash point for community controversy, including tree-cutting in Occidental Park, concerts in Gas Works Park, field lighting and warehouse-leasing in Magnuson Park, fake grass at Loyal Heights and the notorious Woodland Park Zoo parking garage, where Parks was the city’s partner with the non-profit, private Zoo Society.

In many cases, Parks ran roughshod over citizen opinion and was later found to have violated the law or public process. With the departure of longtime director Ken Bounds early last year and overhaul of the Parks Board, fresh air seems the rule of the day. Renewal of the levy, which Conlin expects to see on the November ballot, is a politically bold but risky move. When I mentioned the contentiousness around Parks, Conlin admitted, “It’s something we’re going to have to work with.” Whether the process heals some still-festering wounds, or merely rubs salt in them, will attest to Conlin’s and the Council’s political adeptness. No one wants to see parks fiscally hamstrung, but the levy could provide a negotiating wedge for the public to ensure a transparent and fair, even if rocky, process for determining parks policies.

The move also could highlight Conlin’s own generally underappreciated political skills. While not committing to any particular office, Conlin already has begun raising funds for a 2009 candidacy that his fans hope will be for the mayor’s office. Backing the levy is a brilliant move in that sense. It will provide a high-profile issue and political test-bed for Conlin. It puts the mayor in a tricky position: If he actively opposes the levy he’ll look anti-civic and hypocritical (“Mr. Green Opposes Public-Space Funding”). If he does a 180 all of a sudden he’ll look like he’s not only flip-flopping but merely following Conlin’s astute lead.

A co-founder of Sustainable Seattle first elected to the Council in 1997 on a strong environment/sustainability platform, Conlin also is in a position to challenge some of the mayor’s inconsistencies of promoting unbridled development while pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At nearly every level, from the cars he drives to the trees he cuts down (while announcing massive stick-tree plantings, natch), the Nickels persona is fraught with hypocrisy. A lapdog media airbrushes Nickels’ flim-flammery, but a resilient City Council led by its new president could embarrass the mayor when called for. Significantly, neither Nickels nor a mayoral proxy was evident at the going-away party for Peter Steinbrueck last month, or yesterday’s swearing-in reception.

Beyond any mayoral implications, though, there’s a sense that with global warming and green initiatives driving much of public policy, especially in Seattle, Conlin’s time has come. Over the year’s he’s been a consistent advocate for the environment and the little guy in city politics. He’s done far more behind-the-scenes maneuvering than he gets credit for. He’s shown an ability to work with a variety of constituencies, including downtown developers, in forging effective compromises. And when he’s been crossed, he hasn’t gotten arrogant or rattled. I’ve never seen Conlin get really mad. But I have seen him get even. In throwing down the gauntlet as Council president and coming to the game with certified green credentials, he’s daring the mayor to practice what he preaches. It’s going to be an interesting next two years.

New Hampshire election officials are predicting record turnout in today’s presidential primary; as of noon EST some districts were already concerned about running out of ballots.

“Turnout is absolutely huge and towns are starting to get concerned that they may not have enough ballots,” [Deputy Secretary of State Dave] Scanlan said. “We are working on those issues. Everything else seems to be going smoothly.”

[…] According to Scanlan, the ballot strain seems to be on Democratic ballots, which suggests that the undeclared voters are breaking for the Democratic primary.

It also suggests that energized Democrats are turning out in greater numbers than their Republican counterparts, following the same pattern we saw in Iowa. I know my righty trolls have long consoled themselves that the GOP’s fortunes bottomed out in 2006’s big blue wave, but if these trends continue through November, 2008 is gonna be an awfully bad year for Republicans up and down the ticket. Say what you want about Obama, but he clearly has the potential to unify his party while attracting independents nationwide. Which Republican candidate can do that?

FYI:
The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight as usual at the Montlake Ale House, and I expect a healthy contingent to show up early to watch the results come in.

There was actually a fair amount of news yesterday, even if it will all be forgotten by noon in the avalanche blatherthon of New Hampshire’s primary. It’s hard, channel-surfing, not to get sick to your stomach with the ignorant-to-buffoonish analysis that is supposed to pass for punditry. If we’ve learned anything from the ludicrously bipolar coverage — Hillary’s a lock, no wait, she’s dead! … ‘New Populism’ reigns supreme, er, McCain is King! and on and on — it’s that the pop generalizations just don’t work. No wonder The New York Times ran Sunday’s op-ed piece observing that the news media and TV advertising simply aren’t factoring into electoral decisions any more. It’s word on the street, baby…take it to the bank.

OK, this was supposed to be about yesterday’s headlines, and we’ve got some good ones, even if the material beneath them could use some word off the street as well. Housing prices, as you’ve been reading here on HA since the Fall 2007 days of “can’t happen here” local headlines, have been verified statistically to have hit the wall. Both papers have lead stories, The Times being the better reported while still relying on the impeccably unbiased, rock-solid reliable Windermere Services Co. for the upside. The P-I has a hilarious quote about the market having bottomed out and prices actually on the rise. Maybe they should interview these realtors about the benefits of relaxed marijuana laws. Reality-check that quote with The Times piece: “He wants to sell his Granite Falls home of four years. But he’s feeling ‘very unsure, just like most’ about whether the local residential real-estate market has hit bottom.’

I for one would hereby like to say I am not unsure: PUT DOWN THAT DOOBIE! IT HASN’T HIT BOTTOM! OK????

One clue comes from a conversation I had last week with a Seattle realtor about a North End property:

Realtor: “It’s been sold on contingency.”

Me: “Contingency? Now there’s a term I haven’t heard in awhile.”

Realtor: “Oh yes, it’s coming back.”

I checked a couple of days later. The house is back on the market, guess that contingency didn’t work out (wink wink).

You learn a lot walking the street and talking with folks. It does require passing on the budget meetings and getting out of the damn office.

If more reporters did that, we might not have to rely on state audits to uncover Port corruption. In a world of an aggressive press, there would be daily stories about the need for heads to roll at the Port. Instead a passive media sits on its hands and waits for the Justice Department to do something, so they will have some official source to quote.

What else… With Starbucks stock slowly sinking in the West, the coffee giant canned its CEO and is bringing back none other than icon Howard Schultz to run the operation. With the Sonics no longer a pother, Schultz can now focus on doing for Starbucks what he did for Seattle basketball…no wait, that doesn’t read right. Howard we luv ya! But bringing you back isn’t going to make Peet’s and Herkimer and Zoka and the whole new “greening” slash localization of coffee go away, to say nothing of jittery aging boomer nerves. One word: Tea. It’s the new espresso.

There’s other stuff too, including the Zoo’s insemination of Chai in a story that misspells Alyne Fortgang’s name and could use a hard-nosed followup, but tell you what. I’ll leave them for tomorrow’s headlines, make that headline, reporter. Once again I dodged the elections bullet, but for tomorrow there will always be jaw-droppers like this.

As I wrote last week in declaring my preference for John Edwards, I will enthusiastically support whoever ultimately wins the Democratic nomination for president. This really is a tremendous field of candidates who each bring different strengths to the table, and they each put the Democratic Party in a very good position to win the White House… even Hillary Clinton.

I know that Republicans have long drooled at the prospect of facing off against Clinton, believing she would be by far the easiest Democrat to beat, and I know that there is some polling to back up this conventional wisdom… but I’ve never believed it. In fact, I’ve rolled more than a few eyes in private conversation by suggesting that Americans would actually grow to like Clinton once they got to know her better during the course of a general election campaign. I know it defies what we’ve been told for years, but Hillary Clinton is likable.

This clip of Clinton going off on an emotional tangent, her voice breaking slightly as she explains her personal reasons for putting herself through such a grueling campaign, has elicited howls of derision from her critics. To some it is a show of weakness we cannot afford in a president. To others it is just an act; yet another crass political calculation. But me, I see a rare, unguarded moment in which Clinton reveals herself to be, well, a human being, as complex and nuanced as most any other human being.

No doubt it takes a great deal of narcissism to run for president (as it does to say, blog or do talk radio,) but that doesn’t inherently make one’s motives for running any less genuine. We all have a tendency to vilify the opposition, but as Clinton explains, it is possible to be wrong, but for all the right reasons:

“And we do it, each one of us because we care about our country, but some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some us are ready and some us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one, and some of us haven’t really thought that through enough.”

It is fair to disagree with Clinton on the issues, on her experience or on her agenda, but the “Hillary haters” in both parties who attack her motives add absolutely nothing to the debate, and those who expect their own knee-jerk dislike of Clinton to be shared by a majority of Americans are setting themselves up for disappointment should she win the nomination. Contrary to myth, Hillary Clinton is a real person with real emotions, and I have always believed that given the opportunity to know her better, voters would grow to appreciate Clinton and her incredibly broad grasp on the issues. And yes, perhaps, even like her.

According to multiple news reports, Clay Bennett has agreed to sell the WNBA franchise Seattle Storm to a local ownership group, keeping the team in Seattle whatever the final destination of the Sonics. The sale price has not yet been disclosed, but I’d previously heard rumors of a $12 million offer.

It’s a pretty smart business decision for Bennett, not simply because the Storm would have been a guaranteed money-loser in Oklahoma City, but because the sale undoubtedly mutes local opposition to the Sonics’ proposed move. What with the Sonics playing like a bunch of girls these days, why not just stick with the real thing, huh?

I re-read Seattle Times columnist Jim Vesely’s recent column, and I still don’t know what the fuck he’s talking about.

Meanwhile, there are ideas about deep tunnels under downtown Seattle; questions of a five-year boring-and-tunneling task right next to UW’s Husky Stadium and the havoc it would bring; the now-uncertain funding of the most distant Sound Transit rail lines; and the near-collapse of the Washington ferry system.

Bluebloods like Vesely and others are apoplectic about losing their prime tailgating spot to Sound Transit construction. The only people with “question” about tunneling near Montlake is the University of Washington, who fear losing the parking revenues from Montlake-area parking during construction. (The UW would never cop to it, but parking is a big, big deal to them. How many governments have their own cash cows?)

B12 is the answer. Instead of a plan B, the region could accomplish a road here, a replacement bridge there, rethink Sound Transit’s most ambitious plans, consolidate the ferries instead of creating new ferry districts run by the counties, join with pension plans for capital to build toll lanes — in short, a list of priorities instead of a list that prioritizes everything.

Using pension plans to finance road construction is the hallmark of the Discovery Institute’s Cascadia Center. Would you entrust your retirement with the folks who brought you Intelligent Design? Who are tearing down science and replacing it with their own theocratic world view?

I’m no legacy media whale, but even I can see that idea as the “tightly-coiled dogshit on the lawn” that it is.

Postman reports this morning that Republican Doug Roulstone has dropped his bid to unseat Washington 2nd Congressional District incumbent Rep. Rick Larsen. As Jacob quips in Postman’s comment thread:

“If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make any sound.”

No idea he was even running for Congress, and I am an above average political junkie.

It is a favorite pastime of local Republican trolls and bloggers to disparage and dismiss WA-08 Democratic challenger Darcy Burner as an “airhead” and a “lightweight,” as if repeating it often enough would make it so. But it is instructive to compare the brief political careers of both Burner and Roulstone.

Roulstone is a Navy Captain, a 27-year veteran, a graduate of the US Naval Academy and the former Commanding Officer of the USS John C. Stennis, a Nimitz-class, nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I’ve never met Roulstone, but on paper at least he appears to be an accomplished man and a commanding figure… the kind of resume that would seem a perfect match to Republicans’ own self image.

Arguably, Burner’s career accomplishments are less overtly spectacular. Burner, who enjoyed a modest upbringing in rural Nebraska, had to work multiple jobs to earn her way through Harvard University. That same sort of hard work, determination and natural smarts eventually carried her to a senior management position at Microsoft — not exactly equivalent to commanding a supercarrier, but a textbook illustration of the American dream come true, nonetheless.

Both Roulstone and Burner entered their respective 2006 House races as political novices facing well known incumbents in what most experts consider to be swing districts: the Cook Partisan Voter Index rates WA-08 as D+3 and WA-02 as D+2. (By comparison, WA-07 is rated D+30.) At the outset, neither were given much of a chance by local or national pundits, and Roulstone didn’t disappoint, losing to Larsen by a 19-point margin. Burner on the other hand shocked the political and media establishment, raising over $3.2 million and coming within 3 points of becoming the first Democrat ever to win WA-08.

Sure, it was a “wave” election in which Democrats retook both houses of Congress, and that certainly gave an advantage to Burner over Roulstone, but at the same time Burner had to swim against an unprecedented flood of GOP money while weathering the storm of being Karl Rove’s number one target. Adjusting for all the external factors — the strength of their opponents, the partisan leaning of their districts, the electorate’s thirst for change, etc. — only an idiot or a liar would deny that Burner proved herself to be the far superior candidate.

Fast forward to 2008, where Burner is preparing to announce over $600,000 cash-on-hand entering the final 9-months of the campaign, while Roulstone is quietly dropping his bid after an anemic year of fundraising, leaving 2nd CD Republicans in the unenviable position of scrambling to save face.

In many ways our electoral system has become utterly fucking ridiculous, a circus of perpetual campaigning in which money often speaks louder than words or deeds. But while this grueling and sometimes demeaning path toward elected office surely deters many qualified candidates who would otherwise make excellent public servants, it also serves to weed out those would-be office holders who are unwilling or unable to put up with the grueling demands of the office itself. It is undoubtedly an imperfect system, and our media’s (bloggers included) relentless focus on horse-race politics tends to trivialize our most crucial issues, yet it is fair to say that a candidate’s performance on the campaign trail is as good a predictor as any of his or her future performance in office.

Capt. Roulstone had an impressive military career by almost any measure, but as a political campaigner he paled in comparison to the supposedly “lightweight” Burner; that is why she is in the thick of a second competitive race, and he is not. Which is the more demanding profession? In America, our military commanders take their orders from our civilian leaders, and not the other way around.

As the oft maligned and dismissed Sen. Patty Murray — on the verge of becoming one of the most powerful figures in the US Senate — has repeatedly proven, it is not always obvious what traits make one a successful politician… though winning races you’re not supposed to win is surely one of them. Whether Burner is able to pull out an underdog victory against an entrenched incumbent in 2008 remains to be seen, but by the ultimate standard we use to judge all our politicians, she has already proven herself qualified to serve.