Joan,

I will answer your last question as to why the MSM has passed on Palin and that is because she is "yesterday's news". After the last election, nobody with a brain takes her seriously in 2012. If the GOP is foolish enough to nominate her in '12, presumably Obama will "run the table" and sweep all of the electoral votes and the GOP will cease to exist. Palin has the potential to put the GOP out of existence permanently. She has already alienated moderates and intelligent-minded conservatives who are conservative for reasons other than "god, guns and gays". She has no working knowledge of foreign affairs, the economy, zero political standing in the world, etc. I have no understanding why the GOP would seriously consider this person in 2012 and MSM doesn't want to invest scarce resources in a dead-end story.

C'mon Joan,

Call it the way it is: Obama is splitting the difference on this issue. He has said just about all he wants to say by clarifying what is and is not "torture" on his watch (that is until there is a need for some and he will change his mind in a heartbeat) but he knows that there really isn't enough traction on this subject to make it worth the downside risk of pissing off the center and the huge independent vote who put him in office. Obama does not want to be painted as soft on terrorism and he wants to keep all his options open in case there is an "incident" while on his watch. Quite frankly, most people see the Left as anti-torture simply because Bush authorized it, so there is a high level of "politics as usual" skepticism in the "faux outrage" over torture and Gitmo. It's a nice compact issue that has wide currency in the Lefty blogosphere where each "itty-bitty" disclosure gets magnified a hundredfold.

Now having summarized the politics of the situation, there is real legal risk for certain Bushie cronies who may have authorized others to cross the line on torture and someday they may have to argue their case in The Hague. But that is outside the realm of everyday politics and people are not focused on the legal niceties.

The author failed to mention the Achilles heel of all good Dems and that is national security. If Obama screws up national security for one minute, the repubs are back in power for the next 25 years. Why do you think Obama is hedging his bets on torture, Gitmo and Afghanistan? Because he cannot afford to appear lame on defensive matters (a la Jimmy Carter).

I thought Obama was immune from making really dumb mistakes but this healthcare thing is starting to worry me. If he botches this like HRC did 15 years ago, nobody will want to touch healthcare reform for another 15 years and Obama will actually underperform Bush on this very subject - Bush passed prescription drug benefit for better or worse. Maybe Bush understood that something as complex and massive as health insurance cannot be casually reformed in 3 weeks, even if he wanted to. Obama would be a hero if he achieved at least one or two of the following reforms:

1. Deal specifically with the "pre-existing condition" mess. everybody has one or more pre-existing conditions that effectively prices them out of the insurance market or black-lists them for life.

2. Shore-up Medicare because half the population will be on it in 10 years.

3. Tort reform - reduce the frivolous mal-practice suits which would cut medical costs by 25%. I doubt any Dem president could or would touch this but I have not heard anything about it. Use it to bargain with the repugs.

4. Get people to lose weight. Another 25% of medical costs are reduced overnight in all kinds of areas. Put a tax surcharge on all people with a BMI greater than 30.

5. Do something about the nursing home (home care) mess where people empty out their bank accounts to stay alive because it takes three strong people to physically move some enormously overweight guy to the bathroom 5 to 10 times a day and night. Nobody covers this service and everybody is on their own when they reach their "golden" years. One needs 250K in free cash to cover these expenses at the very end of a lifetime.

These are things that everybody can relate to and are the low-hanging fruit ready to pick and pave the way to an instant second-term. I don't understand why Obama doesn't see it this way.

The author makes a rare point in these pages that maybe men and women should be more responsible in their actions that could lead to an unintended pregnancy. For that, her article is commendable. However, she is paying lip service to the Catholic Church because the bulk of the article undermines the Church's teachings that forbid abortions. She wants it both ways and that simply doesn't work in this case. There is no way the Church is ever going to modify its position on abortion and to refer to oneself as "Catholics for Free Choice" is oxymoronic. It's like "Jews for Christ". The Church's position is that abortion is an absolute evil and can never be justified. In dire medical situations, both mother and child are to be given equal chance to survive. This is why the Church and most other churches preach abstinence because it is 100% effective in preventing unintended pregnancies, aside from rape.

Of course, nobody takes the teachings of the Church seriously because nobody wants to restrict their lifestyle or admit that traditional values make sense.