Good diavlog. Always great to hear from Emily, and nice to see a new face in Melinda. But why so short?

Is there a link for the abortion piece discussed in the diavlog?

I think before pushing panic button over the extreme consequences of what would be an incredibly ideological and controversial piece of legislation (Freedom of choice act) it's worth discussing whether Obama would actually allow such legislation to pass. Given that a) Obama is a relatively pro-religious freedom Democrat, b) Obama has has so far displayed absolutely zero interest in fighting over abortion issues c) Obama's consistent MO throughout the campaign was preaching the values of pragmatism over idealogy and d) Obama's determination not to let culture war issues (abortion, gun rights) derail economic issues (health care, education, economy).... there is a zero percent chance that Obama would allow such a law to pass. So in that context, it seems a little ridiculous to be talking about the disasterous health care effects of a third of US hospitals closing and concern-mongering about what he owes his catholic voters.

Given that a) Obama is a relatively pro-religious freedom Democrat, b) Obama has has so far displayed absolutely zero interest in fighting over abortion issues c) Obama's consistent MO throughout the campaign was preaching the values of pragmatism over idealogy and d) Obama's determination not to let culture war issues (abortion, gun rights) derail economic issues (health care, education, economy).... there is a zero percent chance that Obama would allow such a law to pass.

I think that if it can pass Congress, Obama will sign it (since he is a co-sponsor), but otherwise, he will spend political capital in other areas first. Now, here is the most relevant section of the bill:

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination

Quoting Meng Bomin: I could see this targeting the permission laws for minors and related laws that specifically create barriers to an abortion, though I don't think that freedom of conscience would fall, so long as an institution was able to refer a woman to another institution that would be willing to perform the procedure.

From the perspective of the Catholic hospitals, referring women to other institutions that would perform the procedures isn't an acceptable option. Note what Ms. Henneberger said: they wouldn't even sell the hospitals because they would know the new owners intended to perform abortions there.

Will Ms. Henneberger be joining the reality-based community at some point in the near future? This idea that Obama is going to preside over the shuttering of all the Catholic hospitals, that they are just mothballed, it's not even worthy of a third-grade discussion, it's so absurd. Please. New blood is good. Idiotic new blood is not good.

i didn't listen to this but i love short diavlogs. so many talks could have, like, 40 minutes of blathering or "fat" edited out. just gimme the meat!
Also, I'm changing my name to "Titstorm."

Much as Obama appealed to all of us on the left as the voice of opposition to the Iraq War, setting that aside, now almost 6 years since Bush's decision to launch the Iraq holocaust, Obama-Biden-Clinton seem identical on foreign policy. What am I missing?

The question I have, primarily for Emily Bazelon, Is how the "XX Blog" fits into her feminism. Slate seems like a pretty non-discriminatory forum in the many years I've read it, so i was surprised at the introduction of the XX Blog. What drove the need for a special, women only forum? does this undermine your feminism in any way - indicating that the women from slate could not get attention without excluding male posters? Would you support an "XY Blog" at slate that excludes all the talented female writers? Not a big issue, but I have wondered about it and how the more liberal feminist bloggers on the site deal with the (apparent) contradiction of a quest for equality that requires some be more equal than others ( with apologies to Orwell)

Quoting Wonderment: Much as Obama appealed to all of us on the left as the voice of opposition to the Iraq War, setting that aside, now almost 6 years since Bush's decision to launch the Iraq holocaust, Obama-Biden-Clinton seem identical on foreign policy. What am I missing?

Wonderment, I am not entirely clear on whether you are just asking what are the differences among Obama, Biden, and Clinton or whether you are asking what is the difference between the Obama, Biden, Clinton foreign policy and the current Bush foreign policy. If, as I think, your question is the latter, than I agree with you its a good question and it seems pretty bizarre for not only many in this country, but much of the world being so excited about the change from Bush to Obama when it is really hard substantively though easy stylistically to explain what the differences are between the two in terms of foreign policy. I hope someone can fill us in. Then again, and I suspect this is even more true in light of the fact that we seem on the brink of a depression, short of a disastrous war (and there were at

Abu-Noor,

I am not entirely clear on whether you are just asking what are the differences among Obama, Biden, and Clinton or whether you are asking what is the difference between the Obama, Biden, Clinton foreign policy and the current Bush foreign policy.

I was actually thinking of the former, but since your question is a better one, we can get back to that in a moment. First, I'd say that I fully expect Obama to have an administration that is less hegemonic and unilateral than that of the Bush extremists. Bush ran a renegade foreign policy, in defiance of the rest of the world. That's not just style; it's substance. Obama will be a more of a consensus-driven internationalist with respect for the UN, the rule of law and the community of nations. Second, he will shut down Guantánamo, end torture, including renditions. That much he owes his base and had better deliver or he'll lose us fast. Third, a willingness to talk to world leaders (with preconditions?) is also beyond mere style. Obama will listen with less ideologically driven preconceptions and less loony chauvinism. Fourth, he may provide leadership in compliance with nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. There is a

All this conjecture on how the Obama's various teams are going to somehow turn into cases where the "inmates are running the prison", all have one very large assumption in common which I have no reason to believe is true. They are all predicated on the assumption that somehow Obama is just going to roll over and let his staff do whatever they want in accordance with their own prior beliefs and actions, rather than serve at the "pleasure of the comander in chief" essentially adopting HIS rules and HIS direction. Obama has always struck me as a man who has utmost confidence in his own judgement and as someone who is not unable to "crack the whip" effectively in pursuit of his own goals. Every person in his cabinet, at the end of the day has to answer to the guy who just brilliantly won an election that nobody thought he could win, when viewed from the lens of conventional wisdom. This idea that Hillary (or whoever) is just going to come in and take over and act in ways that undercut the

Wonderment, Thanks for your response. I guess I was pretty much thinking of the differences you mentioned as stylistic ones, but you are right that they can be characterized as substantive on the narrow spectrum of acceptable to the elites foreign policy here in the U.S. I'm not quite sure how we would know with confidence whether Obama is really effectively living up to promises to stop torture. One of the most hard for me to understand aspects of the Bush policy was that it was Bush and his administration who chose to make Guantanamo such a symbol, and it was such a stark symbol and basically put the injustice and inhumanity of the Bush policy front and center. Of course, many of those that eventually came to Guantanamo and many others were dealt with just as brutally, if not more so in various secret prisons, military prisons, and prisons of other allied nations at the request of the U.S. There is no reason why Guantanamo could not be closed (and you are right we must continue to pressure Obama to make sure it

Quoting Wonderment: Abu-Noor,

First, I'd say that I fully expect Obama to have an administration that is less hegemonic and unilateral than that of the Bush extremists. Bush ran a renegade foreign policy, in defiance of the rest of the world. That's not just style; it's substance. Obama will be a more of a consensus-driven internationalist with respect for the UN, the rule of law and the community of nations.

Given the ongoing economic crisis here and abroad, I would expect ANY new American administration to be less hegemonic and more consensus-driven. We simply have no choice, really. I heard Brazil and the European Union have already issued statements to Obama saying, in effect, that the days of the USA getting its way are over. They (Brazil and Europe) expect to be treated as equals and not junior partners.

Anybody else listen to the Slate politics podcast? Bazelon is the best part.

Here is a longer piece of analysis "President-elect Obama and the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace" from Ali Abunimah. It would really be great to get Mr. Abunimah on bhTv.

Yes, excellent article, and he would be a great guest for BHeads! I found little to disagree with in his analysis of the situation. If anything, he failed to take into account the regrouping and strengthening of the Israeli extremists (Settlers and sympathizers). An article in Ha-Aretz this week referred to the Settlers as a "government within a government," in response to lawlessness in the WB, including a recent rampage of desecration of Muslim graves (which I had to read about in the European and Israeli press, since it was invisible in the USA). All that said, however, I'd still be cautiously hopeful about a "perfect storm" of negotiations among a Livni-led Israeli government, a somewhat conciliatory Hamas, Abbas, the Saudi plan backers, the EU, the UN and Obama on a Clinton/Carter-like mission to go down in history as the Great Peacemaker for the Middle East and Abbas. There may still be a fleeting window of opportunity for a two-state resolution.

Quoting claymisher: Anybody else listen to the Slate politics podcast? Bazelon is the best part.

If you mean The Gabfest, yes, I do. I'd hate to have to say who's the best, since they seem to work well off each other, but if pressed, I think I'd say I agree about Emily.

In this case (relative) brevity is the soul of the witless. There is a famous story in Toronto criminal law circles about a great defense lawyer, David Humphrey, who defended his client on what charge I cannot remember, rape, robbery, assault, whatever. After the evidence was and in the prosecutor spent considerable time summing up and making his argument for conviction in the usual, meticulously careful way, Humphrey, for his turn, simply stood up and said, "If Mr. X is guilty then I'm a monkey' s uncle" and sat down. The jury acquitted his client in short order. If this exchange had one mite of substance more than the usual, inane bar room chatter I take part in, replete as these 22 and 1/2 minutes of babble are with yet one more rehearsal of the Clintons' marriage, then I have a bushel of bananas to buy for one of my favourite nephews. If Jane Hamsher ever does one of these with Ms Hennenberger, it will be smoking gun proof of the median decline of the American Left's IQ. And this sludge after the glories of some of the immediately preceding exchanges: from the sublime to the ridiculous. Itzik Basman