The New York Times reports:

The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim's gender or gender identity, or sexual orientation. It gives victims the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.

"Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation," Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said afterward. "For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens." [...]

The measure would also allocate $5 million a year to the Justice Department to assist local communities in investigating hate crimes, and it would allow the agency to assist in investigations and prosecutions if local agencies requested help.

And let the record also show:

Many Republicans, normally staunch supporters of defense bills, voted against the bill because of the hate crimes provision. All the no votes were Republicans except for Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who supported the hate crimes provision but opposes what he says is the open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan.

As usual, Jeff Sessions is advocating on behalf of assholes everywhere:

"The inclusion of the controversial language of the hate crimes legislation, which is unrelated to our national defense, is deeply troubling," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

Senator: Sessions, would it make you feel better if we called it domestic terrorism instead of a hate crime?

Towleroad posted a statement from the Matthew Shepard Foundation:

"Dennis and I are extremely proud of the Senate for once again passing this historic measure of protection for victims of these brutal crimes," said Judy Shepard, president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation Board. "Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile. Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families."

And this measure comes not a moment too soon - the 2010 census is attempting to accurately count the number of GLBT couples:

The U.S. Census Bureau is making an unprecedented effort to include same-sex couples in next year's national population count, but legally married gay couples won't show up as such in the official once-a-decade tally, bureau representatives said Thursday.

Statistical problems related to the development of the 2010 census form and the evolving legal state of same-sex relationships led Census officials to conclude that trying to include married gay couples in the overall snapshot of household marital status could yield an inaccurate number, said Gary Gates, a University of California, Los Angeles demographer who has been advising the bureau on gay issues.

Instead, same-sex married couples will be added into the category for unmarried partners, just as they were for the 2000 census. But in a marked policy departure, the agency plans to make the data on same-sex couples who described themselves as married available on a state-by-state basis.

"The Bureau has decided to give us the information, but be a little cautious," Gates said.

The decision to develop separate sets of numbers was a compromise position that was "less about politics and more about accurate data," he said.

Gates stressed that it was important for gay couples to participate in the census, noting that information drawn from the last one had been used in lawsuits dealing with same-sex marriage and to lobby congressional representatives who may wrongly assume they do not have many gay constituents.

Senate Approves Broadened Hate-Crime Measure [NY Times]

Congress Extends Hate Crime Protections To Gays [LA Times]
Senate Approves Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act 68-29 [Towleroad]
Census Bureau Says 2020 Count Could Include Gays [AP]

Earlier: House Passes Sexual Orientation Update To Hate Crimes Bill

The Washington Post clearly lays out the content of the Finance Bill:

The Finance Committee's bill is the only legislation on the table that meets Obama's objectives of providing coverage to the uninsured and barring insurance discrimination based on sex and preexisting conditions, among other factors - all for less than $900 billion over 10 years, and without adding to the deficit.

Many liberal Democrats, however, view the panel's effort as too meek in key areas, something they say is a reflection of three months of negotiations with Republicans and the moderate leanings of many Democrats on the committee.

The measure does not mandate that businesses provide coverage to their workers. Committee members defeated two versions of a government insurance option. And the bill would tax high-value policies that, to the dismay of many liberal lawmakers, could affect some union households.

Time further explains:

The bill includes consumer protections such as limits on copays and deductibles and relies on federal subsidies to help lower-income families purchase coverage. Insurance companies would have to take all comers, and people could shop for insurance within new state marketplaces called exchanges.

Medicaid would be expanded, and though employers wouldn't be required to cover their workers, they'd have to pay a penalty for each employee who sought insurance with government subsidies. The bill is paid for by cuts to Medicare providers and new taxes on insurance companies and others.

Unlike the other health care bills in Congress, Baucus' would not allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, a divisive element sought by liberals.

Last-minute changes made subsidies more generous and softened the penalties for those who don't comply with a proposed new mandate for everyone to buy insurance. The latter change drew the ire of the health insurance industry, which said that without a strong and enforceable requirement not enough people would get insured, and premiums would jump for everyone else.

Olympia Snowe is widely expected to be the game changer in these debates.

One big question that will be answered with Tuesday's Finance Committee vote is whether Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) will remain at the table as the sole GOP negotiator involved in shaping the legislation as it moves forward. Snowe, a moderate, is promoting a plan that would create government coverage if private insurers do not offer affordable premiums. White House officials have indicated support for her approach, and Obama raised the issue during a phone conversation with the senator on Thursday, while prodding her about her vote. "He definitely was fishing," said Snowe, who remains noncommittal.

Snowe lives and breathes noncommittal. Every time I do a health care post, I ignore the news on Snowe, because it's always some variant on "let's wait and see." However, the Politico is reading the political tea leaves and has provided a guide to Snowe's potential votes and the possible outcomes:

—SNOWE VOTES "YES": Clearly the outcome Baucus is rooting for, as he made a lot of concessions to bring her onboard. The bipartisan nod Snowe brings to the bill strengthens Baucus' hand as he, Reid and Dodd merge the Health and Finance committee bills. Snowe's buy-in makes it easier for Baucus and Reid to sell reform to moderate Democrats – think Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Bayh – who are arguably more conservative than Snowe. And it positions Snowe to grab a bigger seat at the decision-making table as Reid crafts a bill to send to the Senate floor. Not to mention, the headlines all laud Baucus for landing a Republican vote and give Democrats the big mo. Look for Republicans to push back hard against any narrative that suggests one GOP vote makes the bill bi-partisan.

—SNOWE VOTES "NO" – This will be written as a SETBACK for Democrats. For Baucus, this one stings because he put so much time and effort into wooing Snowe for naught. He doesn't get the hero's welcome or a carrot to entice moderate Dems. And the failure to win Snowe's support in Finance will raise questions about whether Baucus and Reid can win her support on the floor. Remember, Sen. Ben Nelson has said he won't vote for an all-Democratic bill and other mods could be jittery without the bipartisan cover she provides. As for the Maine senator, she may find herself with a less influential voice moving forward as Democrats begin to question whether she's really serious about passing reform. The headlines may be the biggest problem for Dems as they'll slow the ‘mo and cast doubts on what should be a very big day for Baucus and reform.

—WHAT SHOULD SHE DO? Two schools of thought: a) If she votes against, she preserves her leverage as it goes to the floor. Otherwise, Reid takes her for granted and moves on to Susan Collins. b) White House argues: "She gets her greatest leverage by voting for it in committee, because then she's a part of the discussions to merge the bill, because once you have her in committee, you have to keep her for the floor. Because now you've committed yourself to a 60-vote track. If she wants to be for something in the end, the worst thing she could do is vote against it in committee, and then allow there to be a sense that it's headed to reconciliation, and the progressives are going to push incredibly hard for a bunch of things she's uncomfortable with, like a full public plan."

—CAVEATS – Snowe has left herself enough room that no matter how she votes today she'll be able to change it later. A no today can become a yes tomorrow as Snowe continues using her leverage to shape the bill. Conversely, a yes today can switch overnight if she feels leadership stepped all over her concerns while shaping the legislation. As Democrats' last best hope at winning a GOP vote, Snowe will continue to hold a good deal of sway. If she votes no, some observers may start ringing the reconciliation bell – a rookie mistake, according to some insiders.

So essentially, Snowe will vote the way she wants to, and has left room open to change her mind. Skillful!

Finally, some unexpected good news from an unlikely source. The insurance companies have finally tipped their hand, releasing a report which threatens a rise in rates if reform is passed. While the ad was intended to squelch support for reform, it actually renewed animosity toward the industry:

The spot is designed to amplify the message - perhaps best delivered yesterday by Congressman Anthony Weiner - that the insurance companies made one of the strongest cases yet for a public option by essentially vowing to raise rates. The report also makes it easier for reform proponents to argue that the industry, which had been making nice with the White House, is a bad-faith actor not to be trusted.

It seems like a potentially big tactical error by the insurance industry, and it'll be interesting to watch how proponents of the public option capitalize on it to pressure the White House and Senate leadership to put a public plan - or some form of it - into the final Senate bill that's being negotiated this week. The public option lives!

We'll know more later. Until then, enjoy this ad created in response to the insurance industry's scare tactic.

As Panel Votes Today, Democrats Look Ahead [Washington Post]
Senate Committee Set For Health-Care Vote [Time/AP]
Snowe 'Aye' Or 'Nay' Today Will Drive The Fall - What She Should Do Tp Preserve Leverage... [Politico]
New Bill Would Raise Rates, Says Insurance Group [Washington Post]

... footnotes!

Feb. 2008

Cindy

This is the most important letter I've ever written [1]. What I did with you was wrong. I was completely self-centered + only thinking of myself [2]. I used you for my own pleasure [3], not letting thoughts of you, Doug [childrens' names] come into my mind...I betrayed everything I believed in [4] and lied to myself over + over. I justified my actions because I blamed my wife.

Doug has been a great friend to me through the years [5] + I threw all of that away over wanting to feel good.

I take 100 % responsibility for my actions, plain + simple it was wrong; it was sin. God never intended for me to do this. I walked away from Him and my relationship with Him has suffered terribly. I know He loves me and He loves you. He wants to restore Doug and you [6].

More than that He wants to restore our relationships to Him [7].

Sincerely,

John

1. This letter shares its opening line with three other Ensign correspondences: a letter to the General Mills Co. complaining about Lucky Charms cereal (not "lucky"), a 1998 Christmas newsletter detailing the soccer accomplishments of Ensign's three children, and a 1968 Valentine to which we will refer henceforth as "Lindsey Jameson I lllllove you!"
2. The repeated use of the plus-sign is consistent with the typography of "Lindsey Jameson I lllllove you!" and helps to authenticate the letter. The only other possible writer is Las Vegas fourth-grader Jessica Arnold, whose connection to Cynthia Hampton has not been established.
3. It has been alleged that Cynthia Hampton is in fact an inanimate object. This view is bolstered by Doug Hampton's suggestion that his wife was "was powerless to prevent the continuing affair." Our own Megan Carpentier reports that Cynthia Hampton "has no autonomy or sexual desires of her own." Though no official photographs of Ms. Hampton have been released, rival paparazzi have snapped this and this.
4. Unlike the closing line of "Lindsey Jameson I lllllove you!" ("I will love you for ever and ever and never forget you"), this statement is actually true. Ensign's coveting of his neighbor's wife is at odds with his membership in the Promise Keepers organization, and his 2004 statement in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment: "Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation." Ensign also called for Bill Clinton's resignation in 1998, saying that after an affair with employee Monica Lewinsky, "He has no credibility left."
5. "Through the years" here apparently means "until the affair," after which point Doug Hampton tried to take Ensign to court, and, when that didn't work, gave the story to FOX News and may have begun a campaign of extortion.
6. God apparently enacted his plan of restoration via his agents, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and other Washington conservatives. Acting on behalf of God, Coburn suggested that Ensign pay the Hamptons in excess of $1 million so they could pay off their mortgage and moved to Colorado. This form of penance is found in Ecclesiastes 4:15, "whosoever shall covet his neighbor's wife, if he be a senator, shall pay for this wife to move to a Western state popular with both hippies and Christians."
7. In response to this, God wrote, "Whatever. You did not come through with the $$$ + Colorado thing. Going to FOX."

Ensign "Letter" To Mistress: I Used You For "Pleasure" [Politico]
Sen. John Ensign, Mistress' Husband Point Fingers At Each Other [LA Times]
Hampton Speaks Publicly, Says Ensign Paid Severance [Las Vegas Sun]

Earlier: Husband Of Senator's Mistress Will Go To Any Lengths To Get Revenge

It cannot be denied that female and male politicians are treated differently: women are subjected to a different kind of scrutiny, are taken less seriously, and oftentimes do indeed find themselves butting against a glass ceiling. Says the Washington Post, "Like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin before her, Kennedy illustrated what some say is an enduring double standard in the handling of ambitious female office-seekers. Even as more women step forward as contenders for premier political jobs, observers say, few seem able to get there." The New York Times' Susan Dominus adds that Kennedy was doubly-cursed: as a middle-aged woman attempting to re-enter the workforce, she could have been a powerful role model. "Not only would a Senate appointment make clear that possibility, but Ms. Kennedy would have the chance to prove, by demonstrating competency or even excellence once in office, that sometimes it’s worth taking a risk bestowing a plum assignment on a smart, well-educated woman whose experience doesn’t perfectly line up on the résumé."

But...she's not like Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin before her. They had both worked in politics. Even Palin's resume — which was found risible a few months ago — is, politically, a phone book by comparison. Being a United States senator is not a trainee job, especially not in the shape this country is in. Caroline Kennedy is a woman who has never held office — or even much employment. Is she smart, likable, appealing? Sure. But would her name have been mentioned did she not have the magical aura of Camelot? Of course not. If anything, she was treated with an excess of courtesy. Take her dropping out because of family issues. Says Dominus, "If a male political contender had said that, everyone would have just dismissed it as the laziest of lines, a tired cliché that practically announces dirty laundry. When a woman says it, it seems at least plausible, but also a confirmation of the suspicion that women who spent their 30s on family probably will never really be able to put a career first." What? If anyone but Kennedy had said it, it would have been met with all the skepticism of Jeremy Piven's mercury levels, rather than grave respect. It's a valid point to suggest, as the Post does, that Kennedy's being penalized for a lack of experience grounded in very gender-based choices: she raised a family and now she's not getting a fair shake. I agree this is a fascinating line of inquiry and a real issue: but the fact remains that a senatorial seat is not academic. Putting someone unqualified in the position would do nothing to redress this issue, and would in fact make things look substantially easier than they are for those women who have to claw their way back into the workforce by sheer grit and determination.

In fact, I find arguments that Caroline Kennedy didn't succeed because she's a woman deeply offensive. Is any token woman good enough for people, then? There are hundreds of qualified, intelligent, experienced women — two New York politicians spring to mind — who can compete on any playing field. To suggest that Caroline Kennedy is not today a New York senator because of her sex is an insult to them — to Kirsten Gillibrand — and to the rest of us.

Does A Glass Ceiling Persist In Politics? [Washington Post]
Coming Up Short As A Role Model For The Mommy Track [New York Times]

• Hank Williams Jr., who we started studiously ignoring after he murdered our national anthem during a Palin rally, has decided that he's not quite done with being part of a losing campaign and will challenge Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander in the primary for the 2010 race. [Politico]
• Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman today threw out Florida's 31-year-old law prohibiting LGBT Floridians from adopting children, noting that there was no scientific evidence to support the ban and Florida allows LGBT people to foster children. The state plans to appeal. [Wall Street Journal]
• Barack Obama is adopting, too, and not just a puppy — he's adopting current Defense Secretary Robert Gates for his own Administration. [ABC News]

• Obama also named David Orszag, currently head of the Congressional Budget Office, to head up his Office of Management and the Budget. He will be the first blogger to join the Administration. [The Hill, Washington Post]
• One person who won't be part of the Administration is former CIA official John Brennan, who took himself out of the running for any Administration position after being pilloried on the blogosphere for stuff he wasn't a part of. [Washington Independent]
• If you were missing Sarah Palin, she's all over the news today, between receiving an award from Field and Stream, heading to Georgia to campaign for Saxby Chambliss and being laughed at by South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. [Politico, New York Times, Huffington Post]
• Joe The Motherfucking Plumber is back on the teevees, too, hawking digital converter boxes. When will those two crazy kids ever get it together and admit they belong together... and out of my field of vision? [Wonkette]
• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal hopes it's soon, so he can kick his Presidential campaign into high gear at last. Yeah, we're turning into that kind of political system. [LA Times]
• Not that this election is actually over yet, as Al Franken's just a little concerned that some officials are squirreling away valid ballots to keep Norm Coleman in office. You'd think it was a paranoid fantasy, but he's got video. [Politico]

MEGAN: So I am coming to you live from your ancestral homeland, aka, Brooklyn. It's very noisy.

SPENCER: You are not in Brooklyn. You are in Colonial Williamsburg.

MEGAN: Oh, believe me, I know. To get back here at one point, the cab driver insisted that he didn't know where it was (I had been in Park Slope) and drove me over the Manhattan Bridge, to the Lower East Side and tried to make me get out, which I refused to do until he drove me back over the Williamsburg Bridge, cursing me the entire way.

SPENCER: He has good taste.

MEGAN: I curse more profligately. D.C. is good for some things. So, did you spend the weekend worrying about the security of the homeland if Joe Lieberman is removed from his chairmanship? Because we wouldn't want the terrorists to win.

SPENCER: You know it. The terrorists fear no man like they fear the Jowler. To remove him from his chairmanship for the simple choice to campaign against the new Democratic president and for suggesting that a sufficiently Democratic Senate would end the country as we know it would be like blowing up the World Trade Center all over again.

MEGAN: You can't mess with the motherfucking Nutmeg State.

SPENCER: I want to play by Lieberman rules, you know? Not only ought there to be no consequences for my actions, I want to be actively courted, disloyalty rewarded. Josh Marshall had a good post on this on Friday. This isn't a negotiation! You campaign against Obama? You watch the Democrats gain seven seats, at least? You lose your shit, period. Do you think the Republicans would be this accommodating if Arlen Specter campaigned for Obama and the GOP retook the Senate?

MEGAN: I seem to remember them pretty effectively telling Jim Jeffords to fuck off when they fully took the Senate earlier this decade.

SPENCER: Besides, what's he really going to do? The New England GOP went extinct on Tuesday. Lieberman will either caucus with the Democrats, officially or unofficially, or he'll go down in flames in 2012. His state voted for Obama by fucking 22 points.

MEGAN: But Harry Reid thinks he's progressive. So, like, down is up and up is down and Harry Reid doesn't like making unpopular decisions — or, apparently, even popular ones — so I sort of don't understand why he wants to be Majority Leader.

SPENCER: And if there needed to be another reason here, my friend the unkillable Brian Beutler pointed out that Lieberman's gavel has the power to do serious damage to an Obama administration. But are you really sweating Harry Reid for that statement? Reid's people are saying there's no chance for Lieberman to keep his gavel, so who gives a fuck if Reid praises Lieberman?

MEGAN: I'm just sick of Reid being such a pushover all the time. He's the head of the Senate. The reason the executive branch keeps getting more and more powerful — besides the truism that every Senator thinks he or she will be President some day — is because squishes like Reid and Frist before him allow the executive branch to usurp too much power from the legislative.

SPENCER: But if that's the case, don't look at what he says, look at what he does. He's taking Lieberman's gavel away. That's not being a squish, it's defending the caucus and the Obama agenda. If he puts a crony in charge of the government affairs committee, that's bullshit and I said so here. Even the most outwardly-virtuous Obama administration needs congressional oversight and blah blah blah I hate all this goo-goo good government bullshit like Henry says in Goodfellas. What do you think of Larry Summers because I don't know what to think so help me.

MEGAN: I really, really, really cannot believe that the NY Times called him "a leading candidate to be the next Treasury chief." And I hope that when Valerie Jarrett said this weekend that we're all just guessing and that it's not from them that she's specifically talking about Summers. Because they are obviously, I think, floating him to see if they can get away with it, and I don't think they can and I think, worse yet, that they ought not to try.

SPENCER: What's the case against Treasury Re-Secretary Summers?

MEGAN: I think the biggest reason is that this Administration just shouldn't take on his women are innately not good and math and science bullshit that he said when he was President of Harvard. That is just some stupid, embarrassing, sexist shit that, rightly, caused him to lose his job and the trust and support of the faculty and the student body. I think that, given all the sexism charges floating out and around right now, the main guy that's going to be seen as running Obama's economic policy needs not be someone with his sexist head so far up he ass he can watch himself bloviate from inside his own mouth.

SPENCER: So who do you think would be a better pick? Give me your short list.

MEGAN: I mean, I like Moe's idea of Sheila Bair that she floated last week. It doesn't hurt that she's a woman, qualified and doesn't care as much about fucking Wall Street as Summers does — although I think those are good things — but I think picking someone like Bair would resonate more with Obama's themes that the next step has to be bailing out main street. Summers is a big business, Wall Street loving guy and always has been, and I think there's a good argument to be made that getting first and second quarter's earning and dividends back on track doesn't fix our economy. I can also get on board with Tim Geithner.

SPENCER: Oh shit Crappy Hour just went up in the Kutt! That's change I can believe in.

MEGAN: I mean, let's not take this as a sign that I'm on board with everything the all-union EPI is about, but yeah, I went there.

SPENCER: What are the relative merits of Bair and Geithner? Because I'll speak for myself. The true test of whether we have change I can believe in is whether I can buy a Range I can believe in.

MEGAN: Compared to one another, or to Summers? I think Bair would be an interesting choice if Obama is really serious about this Main Street bullshit he keeps talking about that continues to make me want to pound shots whenever he says it. I think Geithner is a choice more in the Summers school of though, though way less free trade-y than Summers, which is an apt criticism of Summers from the left to which Obama repeatedly promised to "have another look" at NAFTA during the primaries and is sending Emanual around to tell everyone to keep the Colombia FTA out of the new stimulus.

SPENCER: Can you explain Bair being better for this "main street bullshit"? Remember, I'm an economic illiterate. MATH IS TOO HARD FOR TEH BOYS

MEGAN: Ok, so, Obama is all about how now that we've giving away billions upon billions of dollars to the banks — and he wasn't even talking about the possibly incredibly illegal tax policy change that Paulson decided to pass to give them more money than Congress even intended — that it's time to turn to bailing out Main Street (drink!). Bair comes from the FDIC, so she's more intellectually engaged in issues on a daily basis that are actually affecting individual Americans than all in the weeds of intellectual economics and the kind of trickle-down stuff that's supposed to happen from fixing Wall Street. For instance, from the Kuttner article:

She has long waged a battle within the administration for direct assistance to homeowners, rather than having stressed mortgage holders be the incidental beneficiaries of bailouts to bondholders and banks. Last week, she went public with her dissenting views, giving an interview to the Wall Street Journal. "[W]e're attacking it at the [financial] institution level as opposed to the borrower level, and it's the borrowers defaulting. That is what's causing the distress at the institution level," she said. "So why not tackle the borrower problem?"

That's in line with what Obama has said about what the government needs to do next.

SPENCER: Is she the sort of Treasury Secretary who'd urge using fiscal policy instead of just monetary policy as a tool to get us out of the crisis? That's the most econ-wonky question I can ask and I don't really know what it means.

MEGAN: It means that instead of trying to manipulate the price of our currency to encourage exports or interest rates to encourage lending, she's try to spend money on stimulus or passing legislation that would restructure aspects of how we regulate or spend money in order to make longer-term economic changes. And, yes, I think she is. Certainly more than Summers. The question is whether this Administration or the Obama Administration can have the intellectual courage to suck it up, admit that there are some hard times a-comin', and rather than continuing to throw money at the problem in the futile hopes of staving off the worst of the collapse, will take measures to help the eventual recovery and prevent the next one. There's a real political risk to long-term policy investments when they might have to come at the expense of short-term political capital or gains. But, as I said, I'm sick of squishes. It's 2 years until the next election, someone should "run around yelling 'Fuck you!'" besides Joe Scarborough.

SPENCER: I want to give Calderone the link on that, since me, him and another friend are taking a bro-trip to New Orleans on Friday. Also, before you drive back to DC, drive to the Flatbush junction — south on Flatbush Ave till it connects with Nostrand — for a beef patty at Golden Krust. That's BKLYN.

MEGAN: Will it last 4 hours? I can bring you one.

SPENCER: Oh fuck yes.

• Sarah Palin gave an interview to CNN's Drew Griffin, who only had to provide his viewers with misleading information on Troopergate and ACORN to get it. Try not to throw things against the screen when you watch it. [CNN, Huffington Post]
• By the way, although she said in that interview that she's excited to work on American's energy independence, she pushed the federal government to allow natural gas exports. The U.S. imports 771 billion cubic feet last year, and Alaska exported 100 billion. [CBS]
• Oh, and while she's running around mocking Joe Biden's statement that the Obama Administration might face an international crisis, CNN pointed out that the Cuban Missile Crisis started off Kennedy's Administration; the fall of Saigon, Ford's; the first World Trade Center bombing, Clinton's; and 9/11, Bush's. Silly facts. [Hotline]

• Sort of like how she thinks she would be "in charge" of the Senate even though the Constitution says the Vice President's only role is to break tie votes. She's not going to let old pieces of paper get in her way because she's a Maverick! [Swampland, Radar]
• One of her supporters in Virginia replaced a 78-year-old African-American Baptist minister's yard sign with a Confederate flag. I supposed we should just all thank our lucky stars that it wasn't a burning cross. [Huffington Post]
• By the way, Obama's grandmother broke her hip, and isn't in great shape. [Huffington Post]