It's all very nice the principals decided to behave civilly, helped by Obama's need to extract his foot from his mouth. But an important issue has been lost in the media fog: Who was legally right regarding the arrest?

The Cambridge police department dropped the charge almost immediately. That is very unusual -- almost always such departments back up their arresting officer and let it all play out in court. The dismissal strongly suggests they knew it was a bad arrest.

But then, having done that, Crowley starts making angry, defensive noises and all of a sudden the entire department lines up with him saying he did no wrong, including a black veteran, whom I shall refer to as "Sgt. Tom".

Well, then, if the arrest was so righteous, why did the department dismiss the charge?

More importantly, what does informed legal opinion say about the validity of the charge, based on Massachusetts cases interpreting this ordinance as applied to these facts? Is it a crime for a citizen to lip off loudly to a cop while standing in his own home?

If it is not, and if the arrest was bad, then Prof. Gates' civil rights were violated.

And if that is true, he is owed an apology.

And money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

. . .only from the left. And that purity of agenda is what brought the right down (and has turned them into screaming maniacs whose most prominent voice is the delusional Glenn Beck).

It is wrong to say, "Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda;" it is correct to say that parties are loyal to their own power as a priority, taking into serious consideration the policy agendas of their constituents.

The Democratic Party was successful for a long time in the last century by being a big tent and finding ways to accommodate the interests of their various constituencies. The worst manifestation of this was the neglect of civil rights so as to keep the Solid South, but apart from that tragic deal with the devil, or rather because of it, immense good was done. And the time came when the party made up for it completely.

It is also wrong to suggest, that ignoring or bypassing Washington politics and pursuing goals through "far-flung efforts by those organized around real-world results" will be more effective than the present modus operandi. The only effective measure is getting a bill passed, and that takes a majority, and in the Senate a supermajority, of votes.

That means, without fail and in every single case, that the game of Washington politics must be played. (And the same is true as to state legislation, and that often is very important, as California has repeatedly shown us.)

In short, it's not about alternatives to Beltway politics, it's about working in tandem with them in the most effective way. And being patient when Beltway priorities require it. Like when a huge, revolutionary health care bill is on the line.

The only radical action I'm up for is what I call the Chiles commitment, for our late, beloved Florida senator and governor who declared it for himself -- he refused to take more than $100 from anyone, and when he was governor, he answered to NOBODY but the people who elected him. Some higher figure might work, but surely nothing more than $1000. Once a lot of people demand that, by refusing to vote for candidates who won't commit to it, every politician in the country will have to sign on. Even 15% of voters making that commitment would do it, and it would change the nation.

Then groups acting in the public interest will make much more progress much sooner than ever.

Joe Wilson is a militant Confederate with undertones of racism, espousing positions that are fringe and illogical -- very appealing to the loud fringe of the far right in this country.

But as polls and two national elections have repeatedly shown, such positions are not at all appealing to the center where the decisive votes are, at least outside the old Confederacy).

So I say to the GOP, if you want to make Joe Wilson your star, just tell me where to send some money for that. It's the next best thing to making David Duke your next presidential candidate.

It's really sad that for so long the Christian church repressed sex and birth control so much that ancient techniques of birth control were just lost to common knowledge in the entire Western world. It is known, for example, that Cleopatra (and presumably many other Egyptian ladies) used little sponges soaked in vinegar for birth control. Of course, you have to know to put them in before, not after. And contrary to this article, many doctors in my lifetime advised that douching right after sex was effective. Of course, you need to use a lot of water to be sure, and mixing in something spermicidal is good, too -- like vinegar. So if it wasn't working, the most likely answer is that the ladies weren't doing it right.

The complete omission of mention of our Secretary of State is a grievous insult to her and her tireless, and very effective, contributions to these efforts. The real story is how she was able to translate Obama's policy goals into reality. I wonder when Salon will cover that.

Gingrich, aka the Prince of Darkness, is smarter than all of them, and he knows, and is saying, that the time of the wingnuts is past. They're spent, burned out, used up. If Pawlenty was a moderate and now is betting on "the base" (English for Al Qaeda), he will end up looking like that other slippery character, Romney. The voters are not charmed these days with slippery characters.

Wonderful title for the article. Made it irresistible.