The level of anxiety over the last few days, on dailykos and elsewhere in the 'sphere, has been huge, about the fear of the nomination battle going on through the convention. It won't.

Remember: A candidate is either in it to win - or he or she drops out. There's no middle ground there (see: Edwards, J, 7 days before the Super-Tuesday). Follow me for more thoughts after the jump.

... in which I argue that abortion rights (and a few restrictions) should be legislated, at the federal level. Here are some thoughts that I want to hear other people's opinions on.

I think the House and Senate should vote to repeal the "partial birth" bill, right away. But they need to do it smart. My suggestion for a replacement bill:

1. A general rule banning abortions after the point of viability, except when the continued pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or would cause serious health problems. (This could be seen as codifying an uncontroversial part of Roe.)

2. A conservative definition of "viability". These days pre-maturely born children, born during the 23rd week of pregnancy survive, and even a few born during the 22nd week.

3. The repeal of the bill on the "partial birth" procedure, substituting the procedure bill with bill on when abortions should be allowed, when they should not.

Such a bill would accomplish several things:

Reading through the blogs for the latest polls of the Presidential, the following now seems be established CW: Al Gore will not run for the democratic nomination. Even the pollsters have given up hope. (The various reasons why Gore's running is unlikely, is an item for other diaries, written by many other posters.)

And then it also suddenly dawned on me me: the race for Al Gore's endorsement is on. And it seems like John Edwards is going after it, right now... (Those not tired of this kind of speculation can follow my random thoughts below the fold.)

Update: From the comments, I've learnt that I have not made myself clear. What I'm doing, is trying to redefine "electability" to the meaning the word implies: Making smart tactical choices in the primaries, and that bogus electability arguments must be challenged with counter-arguments about tacticts regarding electability in the genereal, and not with contempt for the whole concept. (And now I'm going to bed, as I'm in a very different timezone.)[/end update]

Original diary: With 2008 season already kicking in, and Russ Feingold already bowing out, I see the old rift widening again: I lot of kossacks speak of "electability" as something negative, presumably because it was used as an argument for Kerry and against Dean.

I say the analysis behind that thinking is quite wrong. The problem wasn't the electability considerations, but that Kerry wasn't the most electable candidate. For some reason his primary campaign team made him look like he was, and the media establishment bought it for a while, but he clearly wasn't. Why?

I know, bloggers don't write in the paper, they write on their blog. However, the mischaracterisations of kos' and the kossakcs' views on the CT Senate primary are so bad that they merit an exception - to set the record straight. What I suggest is a measured Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post (or NYT), by kos or some other high-profile blogger.

Here's my first take on how such a op-ed could be worded - if, for no other reason, then that I wanted to write it down myself. Don't look for any new arguments or new points made. What I am trying to do here is the short version, the "Why bloggers want Lieberman out - for dummies".

(I wrote this before kos linked to Meyerson's piece on the Post today, but I still think it is a relevant course of action, so i'll post it anyway.)

If you understand your enemy, you have a good chance at winning the war. If you understand what's going on in Joe Lieberman's head (and in those of his campaign staff), you will have better chances playing it right against him in CT Senate Race.

One of the most important lessons for interpreting anyone's state of mind, or anyone's statements, texts or actions, is to avoid assigning rationality and motive, where more often than not no such thing exists. Substitute the rational mind with the explanatory power of habits, and you're closer to a more organic understanding.

My prediction is that Lieberman still hasn't got a clue as to whether he will run as an independent, but in the end, he will not do it. Bear with me after the jump, and I'll explain why.

The last few days something dawned upon me, from reading this site, mostly: The most important tactical aspect of '08 is: Who can beat McCain in '08. [OK, I may be stating the obvious, but bear with me.]

Over the last few weeks conservative forces in the GOP have started what was mighty predictable: An effort to put as much distance as possible between Bush and all those GOPers facing election in '08. In short: They're already long into their efforts at setting up the best possible conditions for ...

I don't think Pastor Lovelace's apology for his "flush the Koran" sign has been diaried yet:

As it turns out central Baptist organization have taken some action.

Many here hoped for el Baradai, but the Nobel Peace Prize for 2004 was awarded to Kenyan Environmental activist Wangari Maathai. She is the first African woman to win the Peace Prize. More analysis Update [2004-10-8 10:20:47 by PoliticGeek Pro]: below the fold.

There is a general understanding that politicians should not interfere in elections in other countries, esp. allied countries. That is respected by most Norwegian politicians, although almost every one of them are secretly rooting for Kerry.

Why? Because when the Norwegian conservative defence minister Devold said" "Bush eller Kerry ett fett for Norge" (the link is to a Norwegian news story), translated: "Bush or Kerry, doesn't matter for Norway", there was a general up-roar in the press. It couldn't have been more revealing. Devold is the closest thing we have to a Norwegian wingnut in power. She is sometimes called "the Norwegian Rumsfeld", which is meant as an insult, but which she takes as a compliment. She considers herself to be a friend of him, btw.

Short story: It took one politician to state the official, neutral line aloud, and the whole "we're staying neutral"-bluff was called.... Edited to add: Time allowing, I'll translate and post some snippets from the newspapers.

In Norway, the third largest oil exporter in the world, an oil-worker strike is in progress, and a huge strike and lock-out is possible Monday. Hence, expect even higher oil prices soon.

The long-term effect isn't big, the strike is likely to end within a few weeks.

News from Norway: a lefty group called "tellhim.no" have made this ad (pdf file, 407 kb), supposed to run in The Washington Post, if they can raise the money.

What kind of effect (if any) will such a campaign have on US (electoral) politics? I dunno. I just hope it won't help Bush.

After many hours of delay and pressure from outside parties, the final peace agreement, (hopefully) ending the civil war was signed an hour or so ago.

Yay!

Unless unexpecting events come up over the night, a signing of a final protocols ending the civil war in Sudan will happen tomorrow, in Kenya. BBC has it.

The actual treaty will take a couple of weeks to hammer out, and may be signed elsewhere, maybe somewhere very, very visible.

Provided this actually works out, I'll post a longer diary of the politicking behind the scenes.

According to Ron Fournier, of the Associated Press, Kerry could back an antiabortion SCOTUS judge, under specific circumstances. People are crying "foul", for some reason, but the only thing I see happening, is that Kerry would view a replacement for Scalia differently than a replacement for Souter.

This reminds me of what What would Jed Bartlet do?

Talking about "foreign leaders": I have an idea for a question that some pollster should take to Middle America in swing states:

"Then I would like to ask you some questions about cost of the war in Iraq. Many people feel other countries than the US should share the burden. Which of the candidates for President do you think will have the best chances of getting other countries to share a substantial part of the costs, in troops and money, for the stabilizing effort in Iraq, John Kerry or George W. Bush [names rotated]?"

As much as Zogby is off sometimes, he is also often right. But I was just shocked at the obvious pro-GOP bias in his question, about filibustering Shrub's nominees. As it turns out, Zogbywise, a majority of likely voters are siding with the GOP, against the filibustering of the worst of Shrub's nominees. Something like 56% are against filibustering, 34% support it. Given the biased question, I think these results are worthless.

According to The Boston Globe, MA lawmakers are plotting a plan to keep the state's delegation all democrat, all the time:

Beacon Hill lawmakers want to pass legislation that would leave Kerry's seat vacant for two months or more, until a special election is held to fill it. That would prevent the Republican governor from naming an interim senator, as is currently required by state law.

That didn't take them long! Is this the way to go? Discuss! Take the poll! :)