Bloggers comment on the visits by Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to a civil rights march in Selma, Ala. They also speculate about Sen. Pete Domenici's contact with a U.S. attorney and offer theories about why poor people don't get married.
Campaign with drawl: Obama and Clinton shared campaign turf for the first time Sunday in Selma, Ala., commemorating the 42nd anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday" civil rights march. Each also spoke at a church service in town, and bloggers on the right noted similarities in their speeches: Both presidential candidates seemed to develop a Southern drawl.
Haile Rivera, posting at NYC group political blog Room Eight, "I was disturbed by the fact that they were divided by 6 individuals (leaders I assume) during their march. I think that would have looked more as if they were For the CAUSE (and not votes) if they would have marched TOGETHER."
But kenoshaMarge, commenting at liberal news blog TruthDig, thought the rivalry was overblown: "Clinton and Obama both gave excellent speeches. They then marched in the same parade. What did anyone expect, a shootout? This was not the time and not the place. They both were smart enough and had class enough to know that. By the way, where were any prominent Republicans on this important anniversary?"
Obamarama gave the play-by-play at his adoring site: "The speech was powerful, touching on Biblical themes and positioning Sen. Obama as a black leader of a new generation — the 'Joshua generation' — that understands and pays homage to the contributions of its predecessors, without which this younger cohort would never have the opportunities it does today."
African American Political Pundit, who identifies as an independent, was unimpressed: "Do you think African Americans should be insulted by Hillary's condescending, fake quasi-black, southern accent at a Black Church.? … If she keeps playing this type of racial card games, black voters may deal her a pair of 2's and deal Obama or Edwards a straight flush."
AllahPundit at Hot Air, a conservative blogging network, questioned the timeline cited by Obama in his speech: "A Kennedy program helped bring Obama's father to the United States? Really? According to Obama's first book, '… In 1959, at the age of 23, he arrived at the University of Hawaii – the first African student there.' 1959. Two years before JFK was inaugurated. As for his parents getting together in part because of what was stirring from Selma, Bloody Sunday happened on March 7, 1965. Obama was born August 4, 1961."
Read more about the Selma showdown.
A firing offense: On the eve of congressional hearings regarding the firings of eight federal prosecutors, New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, a Republican, admitted Sunday that he contacted U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias about an ongoing investigation. Iglesias was later fired.
At The Carpetbagger Report, lefty Steve Benen isn't buying it: "At the risk of sounding cynical, Domenici's explanation doesn't sound … what's the word … true. The senator violated congressional ethics rules by placing the call, so he's spinning furiously to find a way out of this mess. All the spinning seems to have left the poor man dizzy…. Domenici, for example, is still sticking to the notion that Iglesias was fired because of job performance, despite the fact that the Justice Department abandoned that talking point last week and moved onto something else (administration 'priorities')."
Albuquerque PR man Joe Monahan, at his New Mexico Politics, suggested that Rep. Heather Wilson is the one "still twisting slowly in the wind": "And what will Iglesias now tell Congress about those calls? … After all, it was Wilson, not Domenici, seeking re-election and who would have directly benefited from courthouse indictments. That will make it all the more plausible to her congressional foes that she used a heavy hand that could be the basis for an ethics investigation, and Democrats hope, the end of her congressional tenure."
Read more about the calls made by Sen. Domenici.
Saying "I don't": While it's not news anymore that the number of people getting married has dropped, the Washington Post gets specific about who does get married these days: rich, educated people. Among the reasons why: sharing a household leads to being responsible about finances; husbands will work more hours when they are supporting a family; and in some cases, poor people look at their parents' failed marriage with little envy. (Note: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.)
Pam Spaudling writes at Pandagon, a liberal group blog: "That matter that couples 'can't afford' to marry is largely a cover about fear of making the commitment — after all, one can simply having a civil ceremony at the courthouse. All the bells and whistles tied to 'getting married' in American culture — the invitations, the big ceremony the tux and dresses, the big wedding cake, blah, blah, blah isn't necessary."
Bella de Paolo, the author of a book on the stigma of singledom, defends bachelors at the Huffington Post: "As Time magazine recently pointed out, Americans love marriage. But here's something else that millions of Americans love - the time they spend single. Increasingly, single people are not running away from marriage, they are embracing their singlehood."
Mick Stockinger, at Utah group blog Uncorrelated,thought the responsibilities of family had done him good: "[O]ne of my good friends and I were on a road trip and got to talking about how much money we'd really need to live comfortably by ourselves. Basically I could work as the night manager at McDonalds and have everything I need. Providing for the wife and the kids had been a tremendous financial incentive. Ordinarily I'm just not that ambitious. The idea that you have to be 'secure" to get married is a little silly--why not build a life together from scratch? No need for prenuptial agreements that way."
Read more about the Post article.