Read What's In Bold

Then read the link at the bottom. From the Philadelphia debate transcript.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, let's stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, and that has to be one of our top priorities. And I will make it one of our top priorities when I'm president of the United States.
I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we've got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is.
Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.
MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.
And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don't now have.
Number one, we've got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He's not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.
And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.
And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.
Therefore we have got to have this process that reaches out, beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.

But the NIE said Iran has stopped trying to build nuclear weaponry in 2003.

ht Mark Kraft at Yglesias' blog.

Our Society Must Save Them

The Authorities must step in and save the children from being indoctrinated into a lifetime of danged ugly hair-dos.

Salute

Why not so progressive on Healthcare?

Sean Wilentz is unhappy about the outcome of the primaries and blames it on the system, in an essay Scott Lemieux deems stupid.

At this point, I'm inclined to believe that this is the kind of election Democrats wanted: strong grassroots politicking, strong field operations, attention paid to all 50 states, strong candidates, lots of small donors. It ain't 2004. And it looks like Obama will win, strengthening the hand of people in the party like Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi. It's heartening to hear a Democratic candidate say some of the things Obama says, like how he wants to "change the mindset that got us into the Iraq War." That would be good.

But I've never found a good explanation for why his campaign hasn't adopted universal health coverage. He'll mandate parents get coverage for their kids--which is good. But not the parents themselves, their coverage should be "voluntary." I think John Edwards skewered that word in a debate (He said, "Bush wanted to make Social Security voluntary.") I don't see how it benefits a family if the kid can go to the doctor without fear of excessive costs to the family budget but Mom and Dad have to just work through the pain in the shoulder, or let that infection fester, or put off that cancer screening because they don't want a doctor bill to take away the rent money.

I have a guess about why Obama was the last of the big three to go for health plan and the most status quo in his promises--Axelrod or somebody else in the campaign did the polling and figured it was too much for Obama to promise it. It's pretty clear he's decided to ride the outrage about the Iraq War to victory--maybe that was all the outrage Obama calculated he could utilize. There's definitely strong feelings among Democrats about healthcare coverage. A low level white politician who supports Obama recently told me, "There's something powerful in white people voting for a black candidate. White voters want get America past that hurdle of never electing a black President." I think he was right about that. Electing a black President won't end racial disparities in America, but it will be a great step forward. And if Obama is going to be a smart enough politician to overcome the challenges in winning as the first black candidate, he probably doesn't want to overextend himself by promising as much as Edwards or Hillary did.

But that's just a guess. He could have some principled opposition to a healthcare coverage system that moved further away from market forces.

When Bush beat McCain in 2000, McCain remained in the Senate and got his signature campaign finance law passed. Maybe Hillary will be able to do something similar with healthcare legislation.

Florida Marlins' Cheerleaders

Feast your eyes on this!

Congrats to Lawyers Guns And Money

This fine blog has been cited in a print article on page B4 on the March 28, 2008 Chronicle of Higher Education for its arguments regarding certain legalities. I recall when LGM's esteemed legal scholar held the opposite opinion seven years ago at the House of Fun... or was it Flowers? or Big Time? Curse you, demon rum!

Science News

Obama Loves a Union-Hater

Obama is giving and getting some love from Bloomberg, and there's rumors Obama would make him VP. I lost much respect for Mike Bloomberg when he fought the Transit Workers Union in NYC. According to Steve Gilliard:

It was an amazing miscalculation which walked Bloomberg into a fatal mistake. Calling the union members thugs was an amazing error of judgment, one, the well-connected mayor should have avoided.

What many people, including Jen, didn't understand, was the provenance of that word in black New York culture. First, in the tabs, it's only used to describe two groups of people, mafia goons and black and latino criminals. But that isn't why it blew up on Bloomberg.

It harks back to the the Central Park Jogger case where five teenagers were framed for the rape of a Wall Street banker. Donald Trump took out a full-page ad ranting about how these "thugs" needed to be punished.

When it turned out that all five had been framed, despite the open disbelief of the tabs. Michael Daly, the News lead columnist, and a Yalie, went so far as to try to link the innoncent boys, all of whom had unjustly served seven years in prison, to the crime despite DNA evidence to the contrary.

Then, Bloomberg violated the other key rule of New York life. You do not attack working people as criminals. If they work every day, you don't slander them like that.

Maybe Obama is just buttering up Bloomberg to keep him from running a third party candidacy that would ruin the nation...in which case, all this lovey-dovey is fine. But if Obama genuinely thinks Bloomberg is "extraordinary" and wants the man a heartbeat away from the Presidency, then I'm nauseated.

Bushville

A BBC report on people made homeless by the collapse of the housing market & the mortgage crunch.

via kid oakland and dday.