One of the interesting discussions I had at the blogger shindig last night (I’ll get a report up on it later) had to do with, what else, who’s the best candidate for president? There was certainly a strong Obama contingent, ably represented by Philip Baruth and Neil Jensen–did I get that right?–but that may not be the end of it.

Bill Simmon has been arguing for Bill Richardson as a dark horse. Well, he’s obviously a dark horse, but does that mean he’s nowhere? Bill was pointing out a lot of good points for Richardson: many years in Congress, experience at the Cabinet level, he’s a governor, he’s Hispanic. All of those things are correct, but that doesn’t necessarily make him a winner. Funnily enough, though, David Brooks makes all the same points in his column ($$) today.

I’m not much to take advice from conservatives, and I find Brooks particularly annoying, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. From what I know of Richardson I think he’s an attractive candidate. The biggest question is how he gets from where he is now, which is pretty much nowhere, to the top of the charts. The way Dean did it four years ago was to be first out of the gate as an antiwar candidate. I didn’t exactly buy his conversion from conservative DINO governor to antiwar diehard Dem, but he sure attracted a lot of people and attention.

Unfortunately Richardson doesn’t have that going for him. I still think the Democratic field is going to shape up as Hillary vs. someone else, or maybe Hillary/Obama vs. someone else. If that’s the way it is I lean toward John Edwards, but I think that Richardson has a shot there. Maybe a long shot, but he’s not Kucinich or Vilsack.

Another Sunday, another linkdump…

Don’t you just love it when there’s a natural disaster and the media does its best to show how ‘concerned’ Bush is? The great photojournalism analysis site, ‘BAGNewsNotes’, has a good take on the spin on Bush’s appearance at the recent Alabama tornadoes with ‘The Compassion Gulf’.

Liberal blogs under the microscope again, this time in regards to the ‘nasty, vulgar’ anonymous comments on the blogs after the near-miss explosion with Cheney in Afghanistan. Because, of course, the best way to illustrate what we’re all about is by looking at our anonymous posters and trolls, right? Think Progress has the scoop on Howie Kurtz’s latest idiocy.

Something of agricultural/food interest; the Washington Post is reporting about FDA rules overriding serious warnings about a new antibiotic for cows. Another reason for organics, huh?

Siv O’Neal over at Smirking Chimp has a powerful writing about the 16 million Americans living in severe poverty: ‘The Invisible People Living in a Land of Plenty’.

The Rude Pundit’s maximum rudeness on Bush in New Orleans, with ‘Bush in New Orleans: I was a Drunk and an Idiot’.

And finally, something you should bookmark: The VT Legislature’s Scheduled Committee Meetings Page. Not a heck of a lot going on this week, but it’s a good resource to have on hand to keep an eye on the legislature.

Happy Sunday!

In case you’ve missed it, here’s that vile harpy Ann Coulter on John Edwards.

If you’ve been following the papers in recent years you know that Gov. Douglas’s biggest policy proposal has been civil commitment for sex offenders: basically, lock them up and throw away the key.

Pretty powerful idea. So much so that two years ago there was a legislative study, looking at the experience of other states to see if there is any reason to think it might work. Turns out, it doesn’t.

Here’s what the report says:

However, the committee does not believe that there is adequate evidence that civil commitment is the best use of state resources in trying to protect the community against potentially dangerous sex offenders.

Three of the members of the committee were even stronger in their rejection of the civil commitment idea:

Second, there is no evidence that civil commitment is effective even for those offenders who voluntarily participate in treatment. The evidence shows that recidivism rates in states that have adopted civil commitment are no better for offenders who have successfully completed civil commitment and been released than for offenders who were eligible for civil commitment but were released without being civilly committed.

That’s not enough to stop some people. Once again this year, Kurt Wright is the lead sponsor of a bill in the House to adopt civil commitments in Vermont.

Meanwhile, life goes on. And in this case, when I say “life” I mean more evidence on how these programs really work. Guess what? They don’t.

From tomorrow’s Times:
The decision by New York to confine sex offenders beyond their prison terms places the state at the forefront of a growing national movement that is popular with politicians and voters. But such programs have almost never met a stated purpose of treating the worst criminals until they no longer pose a threat.

But in state after state, such expectations have fallen short. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the laws in part because their aim is to furnish treatment if possible, not punish someone twice for the same crime. Yet only a small fraction of committed offenders have ever completed treatment to the point where they could be released free and clear.

I know that in the face of truly horrific crimes there is an overwhelming impetus to do something, anything. And I certainly don’t discount the fact that getting tough on the most hated criminals at all is a proven vote-getter (in other words, support your local demagogue).

Still, this is an occasion where Vermont may have been a little bit behind the curve nationally, so maybe we can pay attention to what’s happened in other states and realize that we can protect civil liberties and save ourselves a bundle by not going down the civil commitment road.

Just a suggestion.