Outspoken = Off the Wall?: Many, including in some cases their fellow candidates, frame Howard Dean and Wes Clark's comments as outrageous. As one bloggist noted: "There's a pretty widespread tendency in the mainstream media to say that Clark makes off-the-wall claims about the war on terrorism or the Iraq war ... It's more accurate to say that Clark has a habit of making points that many in high political circles consider impolitic, impolite or simply in poor taste to bring up."

I would agree with columnist Richard Cohen (who insists on tossing one in anyway) that the same applies to Dean: "Dean's problem is that his candor has established a persona -- a shoot-from-the-hip guy who talks before he thinks. That's somewhat the case. But not everything he says is a gaffe or intemperate. In his case, the controversial is being confused with the contemptible. In due course, he will learn his lesson, revert to standard American political pablum and end each speech with "God Bless America."

And I respect them highly for their outspokenness. I rue the day when criticism of the sort being inflicted on ex-Treasury Secretary O'Neill because of his new book will lead them to start backtracking on a consistent basis. In O'Neill's case, a respected official fired because of loyalty issues (as the first article linked suggests, perhaps the core principle of the current administration, and one reason why I don't like them) first said that "the focus" was on overturning Saddam from the start. This is being watered down to basic planning in lieu of policy that harkens back to the Clinton Administration. Watch out for that spin, those edges are pointy.

Investigative Stops: The Supreme Court unanimously held today in ILLINOIS v. LIDSTER that brief investigatory highway stops (here to collect evidence on a hit and run) were reasonable, unlike general checkpoints in place for general crime control. A reasonable ruling, though the concurrence (by Justice Stevens, originally from Illinois) was likely right to dissent on the point of wishing the lower court would have had the job of applying the test to this particular case, and noting the stop is not totally harmless. Lower courts apply the facts of the law since they are factfinding bodies closer to the scene than the Supreme Court. The majority opinion was sure to not be too broad ... even this sort of stop has to be "reasonable" and such factors like the fact everyone was stopped, it was brief, and no discrimination was shown were relevant. [Local article on the decision.]

An interesting essay on a new NJ domestic partnership law that suggests the unequal status of homosexuals, even when their unions are partly protected by the government.