The always interesting Talking Points Memo has a little newsbit about former candidate John Edwards’s meetings with the two remaining presidential contenders regarding an endorsement, which the aide claims is a 50-50 possibility at this point. What’s interesting is that, while campaign observers have cast the question of an Edwards endorsement in terms of what kind of deals the former Senator may or may not make for himself, the anonymous source suggests the question for Edwards is much more about the issues – and as such is a perfect mirror of the online discussions that his former supporters have been engaged in:

The aide says he talked about “who’s going to carry on the mantle of fighting for the voiceless,” and is trying to gauge which of the two “will sign their name in blood in order to make that commitment.”…

“He’s torn,” the aide said “He has reservations about Hillary, which are pretty apparent.”

On Obama, the aide says, Edwards worries “whether he’s tough enough to be President of the United States. If you look at what Edwards ran on, which is not negotiating with the special interests, taking away their power, that’s pretty different than the Obama model.”

The Edwards aide added that Obama’s lack of a health care plan with a “mandate” is a “tough hurdle for him to get over.” He added, however, that Edwards is much more in line with Obama on other issues.

So Edwards himself is precisely where his many supporters are – conflicted. And at its core, it has less to do with Obama than Clinton herself. On domestic issues, the fact is that Clinton’s stated positions are bolder, whether it be health care, housing or the environment. The big stumbling blocks are obviously foreign policy and the continuing influence of entrenched power (from which Obama may not be a dramatic improvement – that remains to be seen), but there’s also the question of follow-through on these progressive sounding domestic proposals. Clinton has not held fast in the face of GOP pressure on domestic issues – and famously, neither did her husband for eight years.

From the perspective of this former Edwards supporter, I can’t get past this simple fact; I don’t trust her to follow through any more effectively than her last go-around with health care. Obama may well collapse like a house of cards when the other side doesn’t want to hold hands and sing campfire songs – but on the other hand, he may not.

Odum, did you really think we’d let you get away with some kind of hit-and-run graphic designing scheme?

For my 2 cents, I liked the Calendar/ads/blogroll/etc bar on the other side, though probably I’ll just get used to the change.

Glad to see the “About GMD” up there.

And it may take me a bit to decide on my opinion of the new header, but I will start with this observation: the guy who’s tagline is “undercaffeinated” throws a full coffee mug into his blogsite’s logo?  Is this like John giving us the clue that “the walrus is Paul”?  Is there some puzzle to be put together here? If viewed upside down does the header read “I am not 40”?

Other opinions of the GMD make-over?

Remember last summer when the Brattleboro police decided that the best way to deal with peaceful demonstrators was to turn on the juice? 25,000-25,000 volts' worth.It caused a lot of stir, and got a lot of coverage right here. So much that the town decided to launch an investigation of police practices.

 Now the investigation is complete,  and it may be no surprise to you that the investigation concluded that the police were guilty of using excessive force in their actions.

Consultant: Taser use was 'excessive'

February 10, 2008

BRATTLEBORO — An independent consultant hired by the Town of Brattleboro to investigate a July 24 incident in which police stunned two protesters with a Taser gun says the officers' action was “unnecessary and excessive.”

 The report and the Town Manager's memo to the select board are available online.

Odum's great diary on race is no longer visible on the front page, so perhaps it's time to talk it up again. 

In today's NY Times, Frank Rich discusses how the Clinton camp is going down the road of overt racism pitting Hispanics against blacks, whites against blacks, and whatever tactic it might take to win the primary — even if it destroys the Democratic party in the process.

Rich begins  

…the wholesale substitution of Hispanics for blacks on the Hallmark show is tainted by a creepy racial back story. Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was “making a historical statement.”It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists.

…and I'm sure all of you see where I'm going (esp. since I had to make breakfast for the girls before finishing this diary!).