Cross-posted at my Wordpress blog.

Every time I think Hillary Clinton or her campaign has done something to destroy her bid for the Democratic nomination, I get surprised by the persistence - stubbornness? - of her supporters. Even if Republican mischief-makers drove Clinton toward a dubious victory in Texas, she still had solid backing from traditional Democratic voters.

( continued behind the cut )

Joan Walsh calls it his "Big Ouch," the moment in last night's Democratic debate when Governor Bill Richardson implied that as President he would value human rights over national security. Like a good media monkey, moderator Wolf Blitzer pounced on shiney-shiney and asked him to confirm that implication. Either caught up in the moment or not as in it as he should, Richardson simply confirmed it. It took a few more minutes before Senator Barak Obama finally (to my relief, sitting on my couch, head vibrating with the right answer, as if I was watching Jeopardy instead of a real debate - which, come to think of it...) put the whole human rights/national security false dichotomy in its proper perspective: "The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf. They are complementary."

Spoken like a true former professer of Constitutional law. The answer I was thinking of was much simpler: "You can't have one without the other." When your intelligence agency trains the Shah of Iran's regime in torture techniques, don't be surprised if the Iranian revolution holds your citizens and diplomats hostage in your embassy. There is no "silver bullet" (as it were) to solving Pakistan's problems, and Americans have already demonstrated typical superpower hubris in employing Musharraf as a such; but, as anywhere that there is a dictator suppressing political rivals and the popular will, there are factions, there are people to work with, there are groups to support and encourage - in sum, there are democratic alternatives that would serve national security interests for everyone in the long run. Right now I am skeptical that there is much anyone outside Pakistan can do to help resolve the current crisis; I keep picturing Musharraf going the way of Diem in Vietnam, a corpse in a ditch tossed there by military coup.

At any rate, I hate that Richardson's gaffe will be taken as indicative of his approach to the Presidency, to human rights or national security. The national debate on this subject is already warped by "24" fantasies, BushAdmin semantic games regarding torture, and the more-patriotic-than-thou bellowing of right wing blowhards. Walsh cringed because, as a frequent guest on Hardball, she knows that gaffe is ready fodder for cable political shouting matches and the right wing radio networks. Expect a general "Can you believe he said that?" approach, followed by a rounding condemnation of anyone to the left of Rudy Giuliani as enablers of terrorists. Which is sad. And retarded. More than anyone on the stage in Las Vegas, Richardson is perhaps best qualified to pursue diplomacy based on the complementary relationship between national security and human rights.