Given that Gonzales is, supposedly, our top law-enforcement official, how on Earth does he suppose that he will be able to catch, encarcerate, and prosecute criminals if their lawyers employ the same ridiculous legal tactics that he is employing in his Orwellian attempts at doublespeaking his way around his Administration's abregations of the Constitution?

"No, officer, you can't arrest me; while the law does state that you can place me under arrest, it makes no provision for keeping me under arrest and, thus, I will not get into the police car. And you placed your hands on me; that's assault and police brutality."

"No, your honor; neither I nor my client recognize the jurisdiction of this court. My client is a 38 year-old white male computer programmer; there is not a single computer programmer empanelled as a member of the jury. Further, there are two Asians, one Hispanic, two African-Americans, and not a single 38 year-old. I move for a mis-trial. If it is not immediately granted, I do not recognize your authority to try this case."

"Yes, I broke out of jail. I do not recognize this state's authority to jail me. There is no explicit provision in the state's constitution for holding an unconvicted citizen and, as such, I exercised my right to both free expression and free assembly and left this illegal holding facility."

Etc. Reducto ab adsurdum, of course. But truly, the mind boggles at Gonzales' "logic."

Gonzales, Cheney, Bush, and their fellow travellers want one thing, and one thing only: power. Unadulterated, unchecked, unbalanced power without oversight. This is another grab at that power. Let us hope Congress--or someone--does something to stop it.

I don't understand the thinking behind a Hillary candidacy, and I doubt I ever will.

There are two questions: can she win the nomination, and can she win the election? And frankly, I don't see how she can do either one.

For one thing, her triangulation-oriented, carefully-honed, finger-in-the-wind, highly-calculating way of "playing politics" is not something that tends to endear you to primary voters. Quite the opposite, in fact. And Hillary, whatever her strengths (and they are many) does not have Bill's natural way with people. She is, in fact, a stiff. And if you're going to overcome overtly calculating positions, you need to be able to sell it, and frankly, she doesn't seem to have the chops. Bill loved people; she doesn't even seem to like people all that much. Bill waded into crowds; crowds seem to bother her. I just can't see her relaxing in the living room of my Uncle John up in Derry, talking about my Aunt Karen's line of hand-knit sweaters and their positions on tax reform.

But let's say she does win the primary. After all, if John Kerry and Hubert Humphrey and Michael Dukakis and Williams Jennings Bryan (3 times!) can win the primary, then almost anyone can. But overcome all the Clinton hatred? And the Bill problem? And the lingering Clinton hangover? And the fact that she's a woman? And the fact that Senators don't win presidential elections? And all the negative stuff the Republicans will be able to bring to bear?

No, I'm sorry; I just don't see it. It seems like sheer lunacy to me. And I don't see how such a savvy bunch a politicians as the Clintons can't see that themselves.

This article baffles me completely. I'm not sure what the thrust is, nor what I'm supposed to take away from it. Is Dickerson saying that Obama isn't "really" black, because he's not the descendent of West African slaves? Or is she making an ironic comment about people who do say that about Obama? Or is she casting aspersions at non-blacks who support Obama but wouldn't support Jesse Jackson or other politicians who were descendents of West African slaves? Or is she casting aspersions at Obama because he didn't pay his "dues" in trenches of the NAACP or a black ministry of some kind? Or perhaps whapping people on the nose for suggesting that Obama would have to do those things simply because of the color of his skin?

And then there are the references to the Clintons, and Bill's dubious claims to being the "first Black President," and how that reflects on Obama, and all the related verbiage. And frankly, whatever point Dickerson is trying to make is, for me, completely lost. But I kept being reminded of one thing. (Bear with me on this.)

A huge debate among Jews is "Who is a Jew." Many secular and Reform Jews say that a Jew is anyone who has a single Jewish parent. Other Jews say that, historically, only a person who is born of a Jewish mother is a Jew. This debate is not merely intellectually fluffery; it has direct impact on who is allowed to immigrate to Israel, who is granted citizenship, and many other issues.

But at the bottom all Jews know that, should the camps be reopened and the ovens fired up, we will all be marched in together, no matter what the status of the debate.

And while I read Dickerson's article, and her parsing of who is and isn't "really" Black, I couldn't help but think of that. No, Sen. Obama's children won't be sent to the camps, but it's not hard to imagine burning crosses on their lawns in the right (or wrong) circumstances, whether he is "really" black or not.