An interesting development yesterday: The U.S. Sentencing Commission approved a re-balancing of sentences for crack-cocaine, which had been more severe than sentences for powder, and ruled that the change should be retroactive -- making 2500 federal inmates eligible to apply for early release.
The issue, which drives a racial disparity in drug sentences, came up during a Democratic presidential forum in Iowa last month. Obama, Edwards, Dodd and Richardson said they were for the change, and for making it retroactive. Hillary said she was for the change, but against applying it to people already sentenced under the old rules: ''On principle, I have problems with retroactivity.''
As noted here, Hillary's pollster pointed to it as the kind of issue on which a Democrat could get into general election problems.
So now, does it become an example of how Hillary is too cautious, too careful, too poll-driven? She now stands to the right of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which is fine. But what, "on principle," is right about her position that certain sentencing guidelines are unfair and should be changed but the people who have been unfairly sentenced under them should continue to suffer?