Last Call For Ten More Years Of This

Getting tired of Republicans going after Hillary all day?  No problem, just pace yourself.  We're in for a long, long game of derangement.

A leading Republican critic of Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday he wants the former secretary of state to testify about her controversial use of personal email for government work by April, timing that could coincide with her expected launch of a 2016 presidential campaign. 

"I would like to have it done by April," Representative Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who chairs a congressional committee investigating the 2012 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, said on Wednesday. 

He told MSNBC he wanted answers on the emails "sooner rather than later," and said other congressional panels could also take Clinton to task over her use of a private email address and a private server at her home in New York state for official emails, rather than using government systems. 

That could clash with Clinton's launch of her expected 2016 presidential bid. Democratic sources have said Clinton, who is the frontrunner among potential Democratic candidates, could formally announce her plans as early as April.

Her advisers were considering delaying the announcement until the summer, but many Democrats say the email controversy will force her to accelerate the timetable. A formal declaration that she is running would enable Clinton to hire a larger communications team and respond more readily to crises.

I know the plan is inflicting Clinton Burnout on the nation early so that people give up on her and don't vote, and frankly it's a good plan that has a more than small chance of working.  The problem is Republicans are incompetent and overconfident, always a combination guaranteed to backfire.

We'll see how far they get.  Yes, the emails may yet be a problem, but Republican are already overplaying their hand.

The Ferguson Report: Aftermath

The Justice Department's scathing report on Ferguson, Missouri's local government is getting results. First, the city's municipal judge has resigned over the report accusing him of running the court as a revenue machine for the city:

Judge Ronald Brockmeyer of Ferguson presided in Ferguson for more than a decade and is mentioned in the Justice Department's report about the city that criticized the court's use of sometimes excessive and unnecessary fees. 

That Justice Department review also found that Missouri's troubled Ferguson Police Department engaged in a broad pattern of racially biased enforcement that permeated the city's justice system, including the use of unreasonable force against African American suspects. The report criticized the city's municipal court system and included Brockmeyer's boasts about increasing the court fees. 

Citing a report from the finance director to city council, the Justice Department pointed out that Brockmeyer had been "successful in significantly increasing court collections over the years." 

The report also includes a list of what the judge did to help in the areas of court efficiency and revenue. That list that Brockmeyer drafted approvingly highlighted the creation of additional fees, many of which are widely considered abusive and may be unlawful, according to the Justice Department. The city of Ferguson repealed some of the fees, including a "failure to appear fine," during the Justice Department's investigation.

But Judge Brockmeyer was far from the only problem.  Now the City Manager has resigned in disgrace as well over this scheme.

Ferguson's chief executive resigned Tuesday night, becoming the latest in a string of law enforcement officers and officials to leave their posts following the release of a scathing Department of Justice report.

John Shaw, 39, had served as Ferguson's city manager since 2007, according to the New York Times. The newspaper reported that Shaw's resignation was announced at a city council meeting where members of the Council unanimously approved a "mutual separation agreement." 

The DOJ report, which was released last week, found alleged racial bias in the Ferguson Police Department, municipal jail and court. The report named Shaw as having overseen Ferguson's operations while the city implemented policies to increase revenue that discriminated against black residents, according to the Times. 

Shaw denied in his resignation letter that his office had anything to do with implementing policies that discriminated against some Ferguson residents. 

"While I certainly respect the work that the D.O.J. recently performed in their investigation and report on the City of Ferguson, I must state clearly that my office has never instructed the Police Department to target African-Americans, nor falsify charges to administer fines, nor heap abuses on the backs of the poor,” he wrote, as quoted by the newspaper. “Any inferences of that kind from the report are simply false.”

But you did nothing to stop it, did you Mr. Shaw.  Sorry to see you out of a job, I guess.  When the vast majority of black citizens in Ferguson had outstanding warrants over court fees, it's not hard to imagine the guy in charge of balancing the books looking the other way when the cops would go roll black residents and shake them down for cash, especially when the city got a cut.

To see this happening in 2015 isn't surprising, but it is disturbing.

Lowering The Boomer, Sooner

University of Oklahoma President David Boren has chosen to expel two of the students involved in this week's display of a campus fraternity's viral video of racism.  The question becomes "can a public, taxpayer funded university expel students over racist speech"?  Eugene Volokh says it's a clear violation of the First Amendment.

First, racist speech is constitutionally protected, just as is expression of other contemptible ideas; and universities may not discipline students based on their speech. That has been the unanimous view of courts that have considered campus speech codes and other campus speech restrictions — see here for some citations. The same, of course, is true for fraternity speech, racist or otherwise; see Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (4th Cir. 1993). (I set aside the separate question of student speech that is evaluated as part of coursework or class participation, which necessarily must be evaluated based on its content; this speech clearly doesn’t qualify.)

UPDATE: The university president wrote that the students are being expelled for “your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” But there is no First Amendment exception for racist speech, or exclusionary speech, or — as the cases I mentioned above — for speech by university students that “has created a hostile educational environment for others.”

Scott Lemieux agrees with Volokh on this question.

It’s a public university, racist speech in itself is protected speech, and I don’t know what exceptions would apply here.

It’s a moot point, but I’m less convinced that the university would be prevented from decertifying the fraternity (although I’m not saying Volokh is wrong about that either.) But it seems to me that expelling the students for this (absolutely indefensible and disgusting and racist) language violates the First Amendment. I can understand why Boren reacted so forcefully and he’s justified in harshly condemning the speech, but I don’t think this is the right remedy.

Completely not a lawyer (both Volokh and Lemieux are) but the Supreme Court made it pretty clear a few years ago that vile speech is protected under the First Amendment when the Westboro Baptist Church successfully sued for their right to protest military funerals in 2010.  The Roberts Court heard another case on vile speech, this time involving internet threats, back in November, and a decision on that is expected this spring.

I hate it but the Constitution and the courts have been very pointed on this.  The government can't stop you from being a racist asshole.  Private entities can surely level consequences against you, but the speech itself (and Boren makes it clear that it's the speech itself the students are being expelled for) is protected from government action.  These students have a compelling case, and I'd expect some hefty legal action against the University of Oklahoma that the courts will support.

There's another question of whether or not the fraternity can discriminate against black students, but again that's a separate battle and the courts have generally sided with universities that the action of discrimination by Greek organizations against students is wrong and that public universities don't have to tolerate it.  But the main issue is about free speech on a taxpayer-funded public university campus, and I don't see how the University of Oklahoma wins this one.

It was a stupid move, long-term.

StupidiNews!

• US military officials say 11 are missing after a helicopter crash during a training mission in the Florida Panhandle Tuesday night.
• The AFL-CIO is joining the court battle against Gov. Scott Walker's new "right-to-work" law signed into law in Wisconsin last week.
• Hillary Clinton says she used a personal email account while Secretary of State for convenience, but that no rules were violated.
• A Nigerian woman detonated a bomb strapped to her body in the city of Maiduguri Tuesday, killing at least 34 in a crowded market.
• A new German study finds that the transition to a successful democracy with the support of citizens takes about 8.5 years to become comfortable with the new government.

Last Call For PG, Rated

With former Ohio Dem Gov. Ted Strickland now in the race for Senate in 2016 against GOP Sen. Rob Portman, it seems Buckeye Dems are rallying around old Ted and not really too keen on anything like a primary challenge from Cincy Councilman PG Sittenfeld.

In a rare move on Tuesday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee announced its support for Strickland in the primary. It's uncommon for a national party committee to weigh in on a primary with no incumbent.

"[T]here is no question that he is the strongest candidate to defeat Rob Portman," DSCC Executive Director Tom Lopach said in a statement. "We look forward to supporting Ted Strickland’s campaign and are confident that he will be a great Senator."

The nod toward Strickland came a day after Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) endorsed him. Last week Strickland rolled out the endorsements of Ohio Democratic U.S. Reps. Marcia Fudge, Tim Ryan, and Joyce Beatty.

Sittenfeld has vowed to stay in the race, saying in an email to supporters last week, "I am more committed than ever to running for the United States Senate to provide new ideas and new leadership for the people of Ohio."

Now, I'd rather see Sittenfeld in Portman's seat, he's been a pretty decent liberal voice on the Cincy City Council for a while now   Sittenfeld's about face on the Cincy streecar was the pivotal moment that kept Mayor John Cranley from killing the project outright.

The problem is Sittenfeld brought this all on himself, saying in February that he would get out of the race if Strickland got in.  Strickland announced his candidacy late last month, and Sittenfeld suddenly decided he was in it to win it.

Now everyone's pissed off at Sittenfeld, and Strickland is sucking up all the oxygen in the room. I wish the guy luck, because frankly he's going to need it.

Bibi's Boomerang Bust

Been a rough couple of days with this flu over the weekend, but I’m in an even better mood this morning upon seeing that Benjamin Netanyahu has a whole mess of roosting chickens riding boomerangs to deal with back home.

For all the vitriol in the U.S. surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech last week to Congress, it was nothing compared with what the Israeli prime minister faced upon his homecoming. Israeli politics are generally more vicious than their American parallel, and Netanyahu returned to face what is almost a perfect storm raging around his re-election campaign. 

It began with comments by Meir Dagan, a former director of Mossad, who said that the prime minister’s conduct of the conflict with the Palestinians would lead Israel to being either a binational or an apartheid state. Dagan has long been critical of Netanyahu, but former Mossad chiefs have virtual demigod status in Israel, so his accusation (which he repeated in front of an estimated 80,000 people at an anti-Netanyahu rally Saturday in Tel Aviv, where he also said that Netanyahu has brought Israel to its worst crisis since its creation) clearly stung. 

The Likud itself brought on the second phase of the storm with an undeniably stupid and offensive TV ad that showed people in a self-help group, all there due to Netanyahu’s policies. There was the mobile-phone company executive who can no longer charge customers through the nose, the port worker who can no longer get away with working only three hours a week, and a Hamas terrorist complaining about Netanyahu’s war on terrorism. In a country with deep socialist roots, the nasty portrayal of lazy workers was edgy enough. But depicting a Hamas terrorist in the same group as laborers went way too far. Israelis woke up Monday morning to a YNet headline noting that a Likud candidate, the head of Israel’s Airport Authority, said publicly that his workers are telling him they will not vote Likud because of the ad in which Netanyahu compared them to the enemy. Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon, long known as a straight shooter, said Netanyahu didn’t know about the content of the ad. Given that the prime minister was filmed reciting lines clearly meant for the ad, though, people found even Yaalon hard to believe this time. 

The third blow was a leaked document allegedly indicating that the prime minister had agreed in principle to return to the 1967 lines in a deal with the Palestinians, something he has said publicly he would never do. Avi Issacharoff, one of Israel’s leading political commentators, wondered whether the leak originated with U.S. President Barack Obama and was payback for the speech to Congress— an indication of how damaging he thought it might prove. On Sunday night, apparently seeking to prove that Netanyahu has not softened, the Likud announced that the prime minister no longer supports the two-state solution. Hours later, Netanyahu denied he ever said that. The Likud is desperate, struggling to keep the ship afloat in a storm that keeps growing stronger. 

I’m just so totally torn up to hear that Netanyahu may get stuck with a unity government riding herd on him and his Likud pals, even more torn up to hear how terrible political campaign advisers aren’t just an American affectation. Not doing anything crazy like counting the guy out, but it’s good to see he may not exactly win in a landslide either.

We’ll see how this shakes out, but the notion that the guy might not win is now starting to pick up steam.

Disrespecting The Office

Paul Waldman notes that at this point in the Obama presidency, Republicans aren't even pretending that the office of President of the United States of America even matters anymore. Some 47 GOP Senators signed on to a letter directly to Iran's leadership, threatening to undermine any nuclear deal, and to tell the world that Barack Obama no longer determines foreign policy in the US, but the GOP-controlled Senate.

It’s one thing to criticize the administration’s actions, or try to impede them through the legislative process. But to directly communicate with a foreign power in order to undermine ongoing negotiations? That is appalling. And just imagine what those same Republicans would have said if Democratic senators had tried such a thing when George W. Bush was president.

The only direct precedent I can think of for this occurred in 1968, when as a presidential candidate Richard Nixon secretly communicated with the government of South Vietnam in an attempt to scuttle peace negotiations the Johnson administration was engaged in. It worked: those negotiations failed, and the war dragged on for another seven years. Many people are convinced that what Nixon did was an act of treason; at the very least it was a clear violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits American citizens from communicating with foreign governments to conduct their own foreign policy. 

This move by Republicans is not quite at that level. As Dan Drezner wrote, “I don’t think an open letter from members of the legislative branch quite rises to Logan Act violations, but if there’s ever a trolling amendment to the Logan Act, this would qualify,” and at least it’s out in the open. But it makes clear that they believe that when they disagree with an administration policy, they can act as though Barack Obama isn’t even the president of the United States. 

And it isn’t just in foreign affairs. In an op-ed last week in the Lexington Herald-Leader, Mitch McConnell urged states to refuse to comply with proposed rules on greenhouse gas emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency. Never mind that agency regulations like these have the force of law, and the Supreme Court has upheld the EPA’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions — if you don’t like the law, just act as though it doesn’t apply to you. “I can’t recall a majority leader calling on states to disobey the law,” said Barbara Boxer, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, “and I’ve been here almost 24 years.” 

At this point the massive (and generally racist) disrespect for the President has become direct disrespect for the office itself.  Republicans have decided, probably correctly, that there's no price that the American people will make them pay when it comes to treating President Obama like he's invisible, irrelevant, and unnecessary to the country.

After all, we rewarded these fools with the Senate when two-thirds of us decided that voting was no longer necessary last November.  Why shouldn't Republicans act like Obama doesn't matter? He certainly doesn't matter to the 85% plus of Americans that either stayed home or voted for the Republicans in 2014.

Meanwhile, the White House isn't standing idly by.

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the senators were trying to “essentially throw sand in the gears here” in a way that went beyond the role envisioned for Congress in foreign policy by the authors of the Constitution. He said the White House wanted to send a “forceful” rebuttal to the letter because it seemed intent on torpedoing the talks.

“Writing a letter like this that appeals to the hard-liners in Iran is frankly just the latest in a strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national interests around the world,” Mr. Earnest said. He linked it to the decision by Speaker John A. Boehner to invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel without consulting the White House to denounce a possible Iran deal in a speech to Congress last week.

But again, until voters decide to punish this awful behavior, it will continue.

StupidiNews!

• Three French athletes are among the 10 dead in Argentina after two helicopters collided in midair, the passengers being cast and crew for a French reality TV show.
• New analysis from the US Census Bureau finds that America could become a "majority-minority" nation in under 30 years.
• President Obama has declared Venezuela to be a national security threat, enabling sanctions against seven officials in President Nicolas Maduro's government.
• European Central Bank President Mario Draghi is urging Greece to allow eurozone representatives back into the country to check the country's books in order to receive more bailout aid.
• Apple's long-anticipated watch will hit US stores April 24th, with prices starting at $349 and topping out at over $10,000 for a luxury 18-karat gold model.

Last Call For Some Good News In Maryland

Last week I bemoaned the fact that former DCCC chair and Blue Dog one-man disaster area Chris Van Hollen was running for the Senate seat of retiring Democrat Barbara Mikulski (and Tweety's wife was running for Van Hollen's House seat.)  This week we find out that Van Hollen isn't the only Democrat to get into the race, and thank God for that.

U.S. Rep. Donna F. Edwards (D-Md.) plans to announce on Tuesday that she will run for the Senate seat being vacated by Barbara A. Mikulski (D), according to two Democrats familiar with her plans, setting up a potentially bruising primary fight with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). 

Van Hollen — who had been considered a possible successor to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — declared his intention to run for Senate last week and has already secured the endorsement of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). 

Edwards, 56, has drawn early support from national progressive organizations, who helped her oust incumbent Albert Wynn in the 2008 Democratic primary and last week announced a movement to get her to run for Senate. But it remains to be seen whether efforts by groups such as Emily’s List and the Feminist Majority will be enough to offset an early funding advantage held by Van Hollen, a proven fundraiser who has $1.7 million in his campaign account. 

Edwards’s decision to run was confirmed by two Maryland Democrats with whom she has spoken about her plans. They asked for anonymity in order to speak candidly about what she had told them. Edwards spokesman Benjamin Gerdes said Edwards “is seriously considering a run for the United States Senate and will make a decision in the coming days.”

Edwards is infinitely preferable to Van Hollen in the Senate just based on her voting record.  She's a strong liberal candidate who will continue Mikulski's work and improve on it.  Van Hollen is a corporate New Democrat who would be a terrible Senator and about as reliable a blue vote as the current Heitkamp/Manchin/Donnelly Blue Dog wing of the Senate.

So yes, this is a perfect opportunity to get a better Dem in the seat.  I'd love to see Van Hollen sent home with Kathleen Mathews in his House seat and with Van Hollen out of Congress period, but I'm thinking that won't happen, and there's the issue of who would replace Edwards in the House.

We'll see how it all shakes out.

The Miseducation Of Juan Williams

Former FOX News contributor Juan Williams is shocked -- shocked, I tell you! -- to discover that Republicans are trying to completely destroy the nation's public education system.

The House had planned a vote on the “Student Success Act” on the last Friday in February.

After years of difficult debate, Republicans seemed to be on their way to passing a bill that at least provided a basis for future negotiations with the Senate.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) enthused that it was a “good conservative bill that empowers America and does not empower the bureaucracy here in Washington.”

But with the largest GOP majority in memory, the Speaker still could not get the votes to pass the bill and Republicans cancelled the vote. The Associated Press described it as a “political embarrassment for Republicans.” 

It was a national embarrassment. 

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, managed to say only that he hoped to “finish this important work soon.”

But House Republican leaders have not scheduled another vote.

What was the "Student Success Act" anyway?  You'd be forgiven for not hearing anything about it.  It got zero coverage in the wake of the failures of No Child Left Behind and the dismantling of Race To The Top and the war over Common Core standards.  It was the latest batch of snake oil from the GOP on education, and it effectively dismantled the Department of Education.

That means years of work on school reform have gone up in smoke. Why? The answer is a purely ideological grandstand play in which Republicans demanded the bill completely eliminate the federal hand in dealing with failing schools.

That was never going to happen. The bill already included more discretion for local and state government when it came to dealing with failing schools. The idea of eliminating the federal role while federal dollars continue flowing is absurd.

Too many states have a history of ignoring disadvantaged or disabled students for the federal government to relinquish all control. Total removal of federal oversight is, at best, a talking point for outside groups, including Heritage Action and Club for Growth. 

But GOP hardliners abandoned the entire bill over this issue. They walked away from a decade of impassioned debate over fear of too much testing for students and too much pressure on teachers. There was too much political barking and too little focus on young Americans trapped in bad schools. 

To make the death of efforts to help school children even more certain, the House Republicans weighed down the already-controversial bill with requirements that no federal dollars go to any school district with a health program that offers information on abortion. 

That action betrayed the true priorities of several Republicans — to engage in political showboating while injecting a poisonous issue sure to kill the bill.

The GOP bill would have effectively allowed states to take federal education money with zero oversight, but no money would have gone to any school that taught sex education.  It's ridiculous, and the bill imploded under its own asinine contradictions.

But that of course was always the plan.  An uneducated population is much easier to control.

Killing The Climate Change Messenger

If there's any state that should be worried about rising oceans, it's Florida with its 1,350 miles of coastline.  Instead, Florida Republicans have apparently decided that if they simply prohibit people talking about climate change, then the problem will magically cease to exist.

The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years.

But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes. 

DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting. 

The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department that has about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget. 

“We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,’ ” said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013. “That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.” 

Kristina Trotta, another former DEP employee who worked in Miami, said her supervisor told her not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in a 2014 staff meeting. 

“We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact,” she said.

Can't have anyone thinking climate change is real.  Next thing you know they'll want states and the federal government to start trying to do something about it, and we can't have corporations pay for something that would affect people 50 or 100 years from now.  Why, that would affect profits.

And we can't have fascism like that in America, you know.

The fascism where people aren't allowed to mention climate change, well, that's different.

StupidiNews!

• The national chapter of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity has shut down the chapter on the University of Oklahoma campus after a racist video surfaced over the weekend.
• The first attempt to circumnavigate the globe in a solar-powered plane starts today in Abu Dhabi as the Solar Impulse 2 plans a five-month journey without using any conventional fuel.
• Activists in Madison, Wisconsin protested for a third straight night over the death of an unarmed black teenager at the hands of a white police officer Friday evening.
• Eurozone officials say Greece's latest proposal for a deal on a bailout falls far short of what was rejected two weeks ago, meaning Greece will most likely miss a deadline for a March cash dispersal.
• Less than a year after the European Union adopted net neutrality laws, the proposal is now facing revisions that would allow carriers to set up "prioritized, specialized services".

Last Call For It's All Over, Kids

Mark Halperin has declared Hillary Clinton "done for" over this email thing. John Amato:

Bloomberg News' Mark Halperin has changed his mind over Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming president because of the news that Hillary used a private email while at the State Department and told ABC's This Week, that she's all but done as a candidate. That's a pretty big turnaround over a story that hasn't birthed any damning information about the former first lady at his time.

Charles Pierce calls the media reaction to the #E-MailWhateverYouCallIt a lightweight feeding frenzy.

Halperin is now the unofficial leader of #ItstheEndOfHillaryClintonAsPresidentHooah! club.

MARK HALPERIN, BLOOMBERG NEWS: I said a few weeks ago on this show that I thought she was easily the most likely president of the United States. I now think not only is she because of this as a symptom and a cause, I now think she's not only easily the most likely, I don't think she's any more the most likely.

I think it's important to hold all politicians accountable for their actions, but Halperin's breathless condemnation of Hillary Clinton is off the wall.

I agree, but let's not forget guys like Halperin thrive on this stuff.  I'm certainly not counting her out this early.

Rand's Taking Offense

And my senator embarrasses the state in front of the country yet again, this time on same-sex marriage.

In an interview with Bret Baier from Fox News, potential GOP presidential nominee Rand Paul came out in support of “traditional marriage,” before admitting that using the term ‘marriage’ for same sex couples offends him.

According to the Washington Blade, the Kentucky senator who describes himself as a “libertarian conservative’ has strong feelings when it comes to how marriage is defined.

“I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Ultimately, we could have fixed this a long time ago if we just allowed contracts between adults. We didn’t have to call it marriage, which offends myself and a lot of people,” he told Baier.

Paul went on to describe the bond between two adults as more of a business than a loving relationship, saying, “I think having competing contracts that would give them equivalency before the law would have solved a lot of these problems, and it may be where we’re still headed.”

Previously Paul said he didn’t think the government needs to be too involved in the same sex marriage debate, and shrugged off whether he might some day rethink his position.

So that's great.  Mr. Small Government now wants marriage redefined for all Americans as a business contract, but of course it can only be marriage for straight couples.  That seems like "freedom" to me, as long as ou fit Rand's narrow description of who deserves it.

Sunday Long Read: Reverberating Throughout The Ages

President Obama's speech on yesterday's 50th anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday" march in Selma was amazing, and may have been one of his best speeches to date as he spoke of Selma in the context of that day being a pivotal moment in American history, along with such seminal locations as Appomattox Court House, Cape Canaveral, and Seneca Falls.

Selma is such a place. In one afternoon 50 years ago, so much of our turbulent history -- the stain of slavery and anguish of civil war; the yoke of segregation and tyranny of Jim Crow; the death of four little girls in Birmingham; and the dream of a Baptist preacher -- all that history met on this bridge.

It was not a clash of armies, but a clash of wills; a contest to determine the true meaning of America. And because of men and women like John Lewis, Joseph Lowery, Hosea Williams, Amelia Boynton, Diane Nash, Ralph Abernathy, C.T. Vivian, Andrew Young, Fred Shuttlesworth, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and so many others, the idea of a just America and a fair America, an inclusive America, and a generous America -- that idea ultimately triumphed.

As is true across the landscape of American history, we cannot examine this moment in isolation. The march on Selma was part of a broader campaign that spanned generations; the leaders that day part of a long line of heroes.

We gather here to celebrate them. We gather here to honor the courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching towards justice.

They did as Scripture instructed: "Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer." And in the days to come, they went back again and again. When the trumpet call sounded for more to join, the people came --- black and white, young and old, Christian and Jew, waving the American flag and singing the same anthems full of faith and hope. A white newsman, Bill Plante, who covered the marches then and who is with us here today, quipped that the growing number of white people lowered the quality of the singing. (Laughter.) To those who marched, though, those old gospel songs must have never sounded so sweet.

In time, their chorus would well up and reach President Johnson. And he would send them protection, and speak to the nation, echoing their call for America and the world to hear: "We shall overcome." (Applause.) What enormous faith these men and women had. Faith in God, but also faith in America.

The Americans who crossed this bridge, they were not physically imposing. But they gave courage to millions. They held no elected office. But they led a nation. They marched as Americans who had endured hundreds of years of brutal violence, countless daily indignities --- but they didn't seek special treatment, just the equal treatment promised to them almost a century before. (Applause.)

What they did here will reverberate through the ages. Not because the change they won was preordained; not because their victory was complete; but because they proved that nonviolent change is possible, that love and hope can conquer hate.

And as President Obama pointed out, that battle against hatred is still being fought today.

We know the march is not yet over. We know the race is not yet won. We know that reaching that blessed destination where we are judged, all of us, by the content of our character requires admitting as much, facing up to the truth. "We are capable of bearing a great burden," James Baldwin once wrote, "once we discover that the burden is reality and arrive where reality is."

There's nothing America can't handle if we actually look squarely at the problem. And this is work for all Americans, not just some. Not just whites. Not just blacks. If we want to honor the courage of those who marched that day, then all of us are called to possess their moral imagination. All of us will need to feel as they did the fierce urgency of now. All of us need to recognize as they did that change depends on our actions, on our attitudes, the things we teach our children. And if we make such an effort, no matter how hard it may sometimes seem, laws can be passed, and consciences can be stirred, and consensus can be built. (Applause.)

With such an effort, we can make sure our criminal justice system serves all and not just some. Together, we can raise the level of mutual trust that policing is built on --- the idea that police officers are members of the community they risk their lives to protect, and citizens in Ferguson and New York and Cleveland, they just want the same thing young people here marched for 50 years ago --- the protection of the law. (Applause.) Together, we can address unfair sentencing and overcrowded prisons, and the stunted circumstances that rob too many boys of the chance to become men, and rob the nation of too many men who could be good dads, and good workers, and good neighbors. (Applause.)

With effort, we can roll back poverty and the roadblocks to opportunity. Americans don't accept a free ride for anybody, nor do we believe in equality of outcomes. But we do expect equal opportunity. And if we really mean it, if we're not just giving lip service to it, but if we really mean it and are willing to sacrifice for it, then, yes, we can make sure every child gets an education suitable to this new century, one that expands imaginations and lifts sights and gives those children the skills they need. We can make sure every person willing to work has the dignity of a job, and a fair wage, and a real voice, and sturdier rungs on that ladder into the middle class.

And with effort, we can protect the foundation stone of our democracy for which so many marched across this bridge --- and that is the right to vote. (Applause.) Right now, in 2015, 50 years after Selma, there are laws across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote. As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed. Meanwhile, the Voting Rights Act, the culmination of so much blood, so much sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence, the Voting Rights Act stands weakened, its future subject to political rancor.

And so at this pivotal juncture, President Obama asked if Republicans will pick up the torch and as Dr. King once said, "always move forward".

Somehow, I think this generation of Republicans and the people who put them in office will not be up to the challenge.