I missed some of the highlights, like the roll call, that I always enjoy. Still, I think there were some great speeches and events this week, and some that were a bit lacking. Here are some of my reactions.

Obama's speech: As I said before, I liked it. It had substance, it showed his ability to attack McBush, and it also brought in the emotional content that really pulls people together.

Al Gore's speech: the content was great, probably the best speech I've ever heard him give. I was dissatisfied by the presentation. He talked too fast, and stepped on all his applause lines. It made me wonder if they had the TelePrompter going too fast so they could hustle him off the stage to get Obama on. If they were running long, why not can that first boring song that Stevie did, or, better yet, can Michael McDonald completely?

The Clintons' speeches: I haven't watched his speech yet, but I thought Hillary Clinton's speech was really good. A number of people I talked to said it brought tears to their eyes. After eight years of Obama as president she'll still be qualified, and Biden will be too old.

Chelsea Clinton: After all the shit she's had to put up with from the right wing, especially Limbaugh, she's turned out great. Any parent would be proud to have raised such a smart, poised, articulate daughter. Whatever their personal failings, the Clintons obviously did something right.

Brian Schweitzer: Also a good speech, although these guys from the big, empty states lose me when they start talking about “clean” coal–hint–no such thing.

Best line of the week: It's got to be Barney Smith: “I want a president who will put Barney Smith ahead of Smith Barney.” I don't know, or care, who wrote that.

I just got done watching Obama's speech and I think it was better than his convention speech four years ago.

I think he did what he needed to do in several respects. First, he came out strong against McCain, which he needs to do. Second, he fleshed out the substance of his proposals, including more investment in renewable and alternative energy, more investment in education and early childhood education, and he made clear that he will cut taxes for 95% of the population.

The one thing he didn't say was, as Dahlia points out, what he's going to do to restore the Constitutional rights that Bush has attacked for eight years.

Still, he really got the crowd going, and a lot of his argument emphasized the strengths of this country, and what we have that sets us apart and holds us together.

In all, I thought it was a strong speech.

From the Boston Globe:

 MONTPELIER, Vt.—For years a division of the Vermont Department of Public Safety failed to enforce the state's building codes by relying on voluntary compliance by landlords, a practice that in some cases forced tenants from their homes, a judge has ruled.

In the latest chapter in the long-running legal case, Franklin County Superior Court Judge Ben Joseph issued a summary judgment in favor of Vermont tenants, represented by Vermont Legal Aid, ordering the department to come up with a plan to enforce the building codes as intended by the Legislature.

Vermont Legal Aid has been suing the state since 1982 on behalf of low-income tenants, because the facts show, and the Superior Court has now ruled, that even though the state has a legal obligation to enforce building codes, the state has sat back and done nothing except to kick tenants out of their homes.

Finally, after a trip to the Supreme Court and back, we have a ruling that the state must take action and start enforcing the codes that should have been enforced all along. 

As the article points out, the next step is to see if the Douglas Administration will comply with its obligations and start standing up for tenants' rights.

I remain convinced that most of the anti-choice (I refuse to call them “pro-life”) fanatics don't know anyone who has had an abortion. Still, for a group dedicated to the oppression of half of the population, they have had incredible success.

One recent victory is Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court's decision last year upholding a ban on so-called partial birth abortion. One of the points Kennedy makes in his opinion is that:

While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 05-380, pp. 22-24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow. See ibid.

If you unpack these sentences, what they say is that there is no evidence for what we're about to say, but it could be true that “some” –how many? don't bother asking–women have some regret; depression and loss of esteem “can” follow–we can't say for sure that they do follow, but it's possible. Thus, they couch their opposition to women's autonomy in a pretended concern for women's best interests. It's almost hard to believe that someone with training in close, logical reasoning could make such statements.

This week the American Psychological Association released a new study, finding that there is no scientific evidence to support this theory.

BOSTON—There is no credible evidence that a single elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of itself causes mental health problems for adult women, according to a draft report released Tuesday by a task force of the American Psychological Association.

The APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion reached its conclusions after evaluating all of the empirical studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals since 1989 that compared the mental health of women who had an induced abortion to comparison groups of women, or that examined factors that predict mental health among women who have had an elective abortion in the United States. The task force, formed in 2006, was charged with collecting, examining and summarizing the scientific research addressing mental health factors associated with abortion, including the psychological responses following abortion.

 “The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy,” said Brenda Major, PhD, chair of the task force. “The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more uncertain.”

To me, this is welcome news. Obviously, there is a vast category of people to whom the facts don't matter. Still, every chance we can get to demonstrate that there is no factual basis for their claims is important: it exposes the roots of their positions for the superstition and bigotry that they are. 

Matthew Manning, 22, of Northfield, pleaded not guilty to the charge that while dressed as Santa Claus, he threw a cream pie in Douglas' face as the Governor marched in the July 4 parade in Montpelier.

Right after the Great Independence Day Pie Attack there was plenty of disagreement around here about whether he should have done it. Now, Matthew Manning is facing only disorderly conduct charges.

 Read the rest of the story in the Times Argus.

For his whole political career, Evan Bayh has been trading on his family name, and his connection to his father, liberal senator Birch Bayh. Now there is a threat that Bayh, who is showing every sign of being Lieberman Lite, is posing a threat to become Obama's vice presidential candidate, and activists don't like it.

I wrote about Bayh two years ago, when he was one of a handful of Democratic senators to support a flag-burning amendment; he lined up with the likes of John McCain, Bill Frist, and George “Macaca” Allen in support of this amendment. He was also one of the cochairs, with Lieberman and McCain of a prowar coalition, although he now claims he doesn't remember that.

Once again, activists are working to stop Obama from making this disastrous choice. Let's hope we can be more successful than we were in the FISA fight.

One region of a country rebels against the central government, and establishes its own independent rule. They manage to maintain their independence from the central government for ten or fifteen years, and they argue that if the central government tries to reassert control the people in the breakaway region will be subjected to reprisals and oppression. Is a bigger, more powerful country with ties to the breakaway region entitled to invade to protect the regional inhabitants?

Does it make a difference if the country is Iraq and the region is Kurdistan, or the country is Georgia and the region is Ossetia?

Apparently. Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected.

I don't know enough about the situation in Georgia to pick sides. It's always natural to side with the little guy, especially when it's a democratic country. Still, from what little I know about it, it seems that the “breakaway” status of Ossetia was well-established, and that the government of Georgia was acting precipitously by invading. On the other hand, if Russia was justified in invading Georgia, would they be any less justified in invading other neighboring countries with Russian minorities who are ready and willing to make the same claims of oppression?

One thing is clear, though. The United States, and George Bush in particular, have forfeited the moral high ground. There is no way the community of nations will take what we say seriously after the invasion of Iraq.

One more reason that Bush has weakened our ability to defend our national interest.

We've always been big admirers of Peter Freyne around here. He's been the foremost political commentator in Vermont for years. Standing above the rest of us, Peter got the Daysie this year for the best print journalist in Vermont.

Also, to celebrate his work, Eva Sollberger did a Stuck in Vermont on him. You should go over and take a look.

The Daysies are in, and once again our esteemed colleague Philip Baruth hauls in the big prize, Best Political Blog. In other words, once again our lame efforts at ballot-box-stuffing, underhanded bribe attempts, and ill-concealed blackmail schemes fell short, so GMD comes in as the runner-up.

Naturally, we'd like to win one, but we also enjoy and admire PB's writing, so congrats!

 On the non-political listing, Bill Simmon of Candleblog gets the readers' choice award. Bill also tops our non-political blogroll, so if you don't usually venture out of the political realm, hop on over there. We think you'll like it.

 Congratulations to both Philip and Bill. Keep up the good work. 

From The Nation:

  We write to congratulate you on the tremendous achievements of your campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Your candidacy has inspired a wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades. In your speeches, you have sketched out a vision of a better future–in which the United States sheds its warlike stance around the globe and focuses on diplomacy abroad and greater equality and freedom for its citizens at home–that has thrilled voters across the political spectrum. Hundreds of thousands of young people have entered the political process for the first time, African-American voters have rallied behind you, and many of those alienated from politics-as-usual have been re-engaged.

 The open letter is not simply a reflexive attack on some of the apparent changes in Obama's position, but actually recognizes the values and concerns many of us have raised:

We recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy. We understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense. But retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised.

You can follow this link to add your name to the open letter.