Black Box Report

So, who wants a job, as John Nance Garner put it, that's "not worth a bucket of warm [spit]?" Quite a few people, actually. The office of Vice President of the United States has gone from being, in John Adams' time, "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived" to a fourth branch of government, accountable to no one, that plays by its own rules.

Pretty sweet gig, huh?

More than just ribbon cuttings, diplomat schmoozing, outing CIA agents and planning WWIV, the most tantalizing aspect of being Vice President is you have the inside track to your party's nomination should everything go well for eight years*. The fundraising practically takes care of itself; on the job training for the big chair; and you get to say the things to your political opponents that your boss can't say for not seeming "presidential."

So with the clock ticking towards both parties' conventions, it's time to look at who wants to be the co-pilot of the Straight Talk Express.

Last week, the McCain campaign, with an assist from Bob Novak, floated the rumor they were ready to announce any moment now, so stop paying attention to Obama and those hundreds of thousands of cheering Germans! Look at me! But of course that didn't happen, and Novak was left to console himself by running over a pedestrian.

As anticipation cranked up over when McCain would announce, the list of who he would announce got a little shorter. Rising GOP star, Governor Bobby Jindal took himself out of contention, saying he already had the job he wants (presumably he meant Governor of Louisiana, not professional exorcist).

Given McCain's sluggish fundraising and less-than-vigorous image, Beltway insiders say former rival Mitt Romney is near the top of the short-list. The Mason Conservative approves:

(Romney) is an exceptional choice in many respects, including bringing in a national figure to the ticket...He has also made all the right moves since leaving the race...becoming a vocal surrogate for McCain among conservatives...They differ, yes, but Romney seems to the embodiment of the compromise many Republicans have made with McCain.

The Sunshine Boys

But while Hugh Hewitt and Kathryn Jean Lopez are already swooning at the idea of Romney back on the national ticket, other conservatives are less than enthusiastic:

While choosing Romney to be his running mate would make Washington journalists happy, it would be nothing short of political suicide for McCain....
......
Romney's fans on the right like to believe that Romney lost because Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson helped carve up the conservative vote, but it was only because of Romney's weakness among conservatives that either of them had an opening.

Although he presented himself as a full-spectrum conservative, Romney faced his share of detractors within each branch of the conservative movement. There were economic conservatives who opposed his universal health-care plan in Massachusetts, social conservatives who didn't think his conversion on abortion was sincere, and national security conservatives who had doubts about his lack of experience in foreign affairs.
......
To the extent that conservatives did rally around Romney toward the tail end of his campaign, it was mainly as a last ditch effort to prevent McCain from becoming the nominee. This is obviously now moot.

And how do liberals feel about the prospect of McCain/Romney '08?

MITTENS!!

OHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASE

Because if there's anyone that flip-flops more than John McCain, it's Mitt Romney.

Blogger John Cole is convinced McCain will pick Jesus' Own Candidate, Mike Huckabee:

I know all the bobbleheads are talking about Pawlenty or Crist for McCain as VP, but for some reason I still think he is going to pick Huckabee. I think people are radically underestimating how important it is for McCain to be surrounded by people he likes...That is why I think he is going to choose Huckabee. He is comfortable with him, and with McCain, that is all that matters.

Meanwhile, the boys over at Powerline think McCain should go with someone with a little less baggage:

He should forget about trying to make a major splash with his selection for VP...and make his decision on the basis of credentials, respect and affinity. This, I assume, is what McCain wants to do anyway.

Who benefits from this approach?...Perhaps Tim Pawlenty. He's a bit of a nearly man himself in that I suspect he would help McCain nearly carry Minnesota. But Pawlenty has no apparent downside the way Romney, Huckabee, Ridge, Jindal, and others do...McCain named Pawlenty cochair of his campaign last year and we have every reason to believe that he thinks highly of him.

Indeed, the Minnesota governor's stock is on the rise among conservatives, token and otherwise:

I think Pawlenty is the most likely choice. Second choice is Romney, after very loud teeth-gnashing from McCain. You'll just be able to feel the love at the convention...Third choice is Charlie Crist. Of course, now that I've gone on record, McCain will probably pick...someone else no one is discussing.

Oh yes, I almost forgot. Newly married Florida governor Charlie Crist has also been mentioned as a potential running mate for the Republican nominee....

Not Gonna Happen.

But what about the unexpected choices? All those somebodies that no one is currently talking about? RCP gives the rest fo the field 10-1 odds:

We think there could still be a surprise or two left up McCain's sleeve. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is in Minnesota talking him up...Senator Joe Lieberman would be an off-the-wall pick to counter Obama picking, say, Nebraska's Chuck Hagel. When you need the news coverage, as McCain does, (their) odds go way up.

.......McCain/Lieberman '08???

The Dream Team

OHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASEOHPLEASE

BLACK BOX PREDICTION:

The first rule of picking a VP: First, do no harm. And to this extent, the Powerline boys got it right. While each of the more well known names brings something tangible to the table for McCain, they each bring too much baggage that outweighs their benefits. In this sense, Tim Pawlenty is liked by the (religious) right people, he's a red governor in a blue state for independent appeal, and as John Cole correctly pointed out, McCain likes surrounding himself with people who like (or at least flatter) him. As vanilla as they come, Pawlenty has no obvious hamstrings, although a VP announcement would have his closet stuffed with more skeleton-snooping journalists and oppo-researchers faster than you could say "Monkey Business." But he's safe, and given how well the Republican brand is regarded these days, for McCain, that's about as good as he can do.

As Good as it Gets

[* Unless you have a popularity approaching single digits, 50% lower than your historically unpopular boss and it's pretty clear the public would actually prefer a bucket of warm spit over you.]

On Sunday I saw the Tennessee church shooting story, and I suspect, like many of you, shook my head at yet another senseless shooting. Today, however, I learned what precipitated the hail of gunfire and that this was not a random act of madness but a calculated hate crime on a targeted population.

Most of us like to take pride in how far we’ve come in America. From our ugly, not too distant past, real progress has been made when it comes to racial and gender equality. You'd have to be an idiot to think we've leveled the playing field or scrubbed from our history the stain of slavery, but few will deny, slowly but surely we're getting there.

I wish I could say the same thing about homophobia. Being a bigot is no longer tolerated, but in too many places mocking gays still gets a laugh, and in some places the laughter is replaced with pure hate. Please don't kid yourself, that this was one sick wacko in Tennessee. Consider just this year the uncensored bile from elected officials and so called “men of god” when debating same sex marriage or repealing "don't ask, don't tell." It wasn't that, with every fiber of their being, they didn't and don't believe gays are equals; many of them believe it's okay to marginalize the population without any fear of being branded a bigot. Too often they're proven right. Gays are blamed for terror attacks, hurricanes, floods, droughts - I’m surprised the recession hasn't been pinned on them. And while we laugh at the nutjobs who point the fingers - we laugh.

We didn't laugh after Matthew Shepherd was murdered in Laramie and were not laughing after this tragedy in Tennessee. But lets not kid ourselves that because "Will and Grace" was popular or that most guys weren’t threatened by the "Fab Five", we've turned a corner on tolerance.

Too many people still think it's okay to hate.

So today was yet another iconic moment for barrack Obama. Instead of "yes we can", nearly a quarter million Germans heard the senator tell them "this our time." The elements have grown familiar; a moving backdrop, standing room only crowds, rousing address and then thunderous applause. His campaign is responsible for almost every indelible moment in this neverending election season, he's running at a time when the public is thirsting for change, his opponent is saddled with an unpopular president and war, and is, even by his own supporters admission, not exactly inspiring.

So why, if he's so hot and McCain anything but, is this race still a race? The Wall Street Journal put it best: “Midway through the election year, the presidential campaign looks less like a race between two candidates than a referendum on one of them -- Senator Barack Obama.”

The polls back it up; the latest numbers show Obama up six points, same as a month ago. And interestingly, by a two to one margin, voters are focused on what kind of a president Obama would be compared to McCain.

What I want to know is, what are they waiting for? I get the experience issue; two years ago the guy was going to work in Springfield, but what experience is actually a strong suit for McCain? Stay the course in Iraq? I can't see people lining up for that bumper sticker. Is it the color thing, or the unfamiliar name? I'm sure some people still get freaked out by a black guy in the oval office, and others still buying the smear campaign centered around Obama’s full name and the scary connotations they try to evoke, but that's not enough to explain why this race doesn't have a double digit spread.

The only thing I can think of is that people look at Obama like the new kid in school. So far he's friends with everybody from the jocks to the geeks, but a lot of the student body still isn't sure. Is he too good to be true or is he a breath of fresh air that every school, and country, needs?

His speech in Germany may be another step in convincing the skeptical but I think, for many, he still has a long way to go.

During his weekly radio address Saturday, President Bush said he "has great confidence that our economy will pull through this difficult period, because I have great confidence in the innovative spirit of the American people." That, my friends, is a lie.

Not the part of the American spirit, but the part about this Commander in Chief believing in our resolve. Consider the challenges we face today as a nation, and what we've been told to do in the face of that adversity. When we were attacked our fearless leader told us "go shopping." When Afghanistan wasn't enough, Bush did not tell us "we have nothing to fear but fear itself,” he told us to fear everyone including Iraq. If the spirit of the American people was never in doubt, why would we torture in secret prisons and trample on the Constitution while spying without warrants on those same Americans?

Right after Bush praised Americans’ can-do it spirit Saturday, he said if we truly want to solve the stranglehold the Middle East has on our energy, we'd push congress to let him drill offshore. Does he really believe we're that stupid? Instead of asking us to commit to a generational plan of renewable energies - full of vision, sacrifice and, I’m sure, trial and error - once again he says, “don't worry, be happy.”

How's that game plan working out for you?

George Bush did not create the financial crisis were knee-deep in, but he sure as hell fostered it. Every economic indicator is going in the wrong direction and possibly the most important one isn't making headlines.

A recent poll found an unprecedented level of doubt and pessimism among Americans, with the younger generation believing our best days are behind them.

That boundless spirit W talks about has been frittered away under his watch, because too many Americans have lost faith that someone is in charge, and that someone has their best interests in mind. The biggest failue of this administration isn't Iraq, Katrina, trashing our standing in the world or even the crumbling economy. The worst thing Bush and friends have done to us is, for the first time in a long time, we doubt we can do it. Bob Herbert wrote a column Saturday in the NY Times that summed it up:

When exactly was it that the U.S. became a can't-do society? It wasn't at the very beginning when 13 ragamuffin colonies went to war against the world's mightiest empire. It wasn't during World War II when Japan and Nazi Germany had to be fought simultaneously. It wasn't in the postwar period that gave us the Marshall Plan and a robust G.I. Bill and the interstate highway system and the space program and the civil rights movement and the women's movement and the greatest society the world had ever known.

Fast forward to today. Big ideas are too big, were told. Every problem's answer is tax breaks for the very folks who need it least and a pat on the head from our president who tells us it'll all be OK. We know it's not that easy, we know something has got to change. So here's our moment and our choice: if inspired leadership emerges do we reach for it? Do we make the tough, painful tradeoffs that make things better for our kids’ generation? Or do we follow our president's lead and keep passing the buck as we struggle to keep our heads above water? The time for happy talk and this president are over. Will we be the next greatest generation or just more of the same?

Our time is at hand.

When it comes to a policy on Iraq, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama couldn't be more distinct. McCain wants to stay until an as-yet-undefined victory has been achieved. Obama wants to leave in roughly 16 months, and that will be victory enough. This weekend, as Obama prepared to embark on his Mideast trip, Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki essentially cut McCain's talking points off at the knees:

In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.

"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

(Sound of needle scratching across the record)

Asked if he supported Obama's ideas more than those of John McCain, Republican presidential hopeful, Maliki said he did not want to recommend who people should vote for.

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

Now which presidential candidate would that be? But wait, it gets even better:

"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," Maliki told Der Spiegel.

Ouch.

The Keystone Cops routine that followed was just as interesting, if not at all surprising. CENTCOM issued a release on behalf of the Prime Minister claiming Maliki had been “misunderstood and mistranslated.” What the mistakes were, no one would say. What Maliki supposedly actually said, no one knows. But rest assured, the Iraqi Prime Minister didn’t actually say that.

Except Der Spiegel stood by their story. An independent translation passed inspection. And two days later, Iraqi officials agreed, setting a goal of American troop withdrawal by the end of 2010, mere months difference from Obama’s stated goal.

It’s hard to underestimate how this changes the entire playing field of the presidential campaign. At the Atlantic, conservative blogger Marc Ambinder calls a game changer:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq's Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there's no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what's left to argue? To argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing.

Indeed. As Ambinder related in a later post, a Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign told him in an email, "We’re f***ed." And whether or not Maliki meant to act as an influence on American politics or was just reflecting his own political reality, either way, Maliki has put McCain between a rock and a hard place:

Either (McCain) endorses a timetable for withdrawal, which he has consistently said would be a disaster, and cedes his only big issue to Obama -- and more importantly, concedes that Obama's judgment is sound -- or he deliberately ignores the concerted, expressed wishes of the Iraqi government in order to prolong an unpopular war.

Unpopular here and in Iraq, hence Maliki's unprompted endorsement of Obama's time line table “horizon.” So what does McCain do? To get the ball rolling he went on the Today Show and said he and Gen. Petraeus know what's better for Iraq than the wogs and their democratically elected leader.

Q: If the Iraqi government were to say, if you were president, ‘we want a timetable for troops being removed,’ would you agree to that?

McCAIN: I’ve been there too many times. I’ve met too many times with him. And I know what they want. They want it based on conditions. And of course they’d like to have us out. That’s what happens when you win wars.

Even Hot Air calls the response tone deaf:

Where he gets in trouble is in his answer to the direct question about Maliki, dismissing the Spiegel interview by insisting “I know what they want” and thereby somehow managing to sound both arrogant and in denial at the same time...
...Suggesting that he, from his U.S. enclave, knows "what Iraqis want" more so than the prime minister is only going to make this worse.

Too late. Never ones particularly good at impulse control when it comes to their plans falling apart like wet Kleenex, the rightwing blogosphere is already making room for Maliki under the bus:

We should tell Maliki, loudly and in public, that he owes his job to us, and that further prosecution of our military operations in his country will be conducted with regard only to U.S. interests, as determined in consensus by our established domestic political processes. And if he doesn't like that, he can go to hell.

Perhaps now would be a good time for a refresher on the definition of “sovereignty.”

OK, maybe not. But since these Iraqis never did come through with those flowers and candy for our gracious act of invading, crippling and occupying their country...Have we mentioned how shifty the guy is?

As I've mentioned before, Maliki, of the Shiite Dawa Party which opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place, has long-standing ties to Iran and Syria — and has expressed support for Hezbollah. The only thing that surprises me about this story is that anyone is surprised.

Nope. No surprise here. What Digby D-Day said:

There's just no way to spin this. Regardless of Maliki's motives, this is a total rejection of the McCain conservative position on Iraq. They never wanted to "win," they wanted to stay. And they are being told they have to leave.

Considering this effectively neuters McCain's position on Iraq and leaves him with...what, the economy? It's hard to see how this could be much worse for him.

But good news for the rest of us:

What's truly amazing about this turn of events is that it more and more looks like the Prime Minister of Iraq is going to help engineer regime change back in the US.

Regime change you can believe in.

There are nights when I feel like a broken record; oil prices setting new highs by the day, new housing reports with staggering foreclosure data, every day stories of people stretched to the breaking point, and too often beyond. Make no mistake, before it became vogue I’ve been warning against the economic hurricane that's fast approaching and the last thing I wanted was to be proven right. But that being said, this is America; if we keep our heads and finally get some sober leadership we can make it through even this. After all, we have seen worse.

The Great Depression saw the Wall Street crash where over two days the market fell by nearly a quarter. In one week the market lost ten times the amount of the annual budget of the federal government. As scary as IndyMac’s collapse and the spectre of another hundred or so banks possibly being on the watch list is nothing compared to what they saw in the early 30's, where 11,000 banks - nearly half of the banks in America - shut their doors. FDR famously declared a three day bank holiday when he told Americans "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." America listened are we persevered.

In the 80"s we saw nearly 800 banks close because of the Savings and Loan crisis.

And when the dot com bubble burst 8 years ago, we saw huge selloffs in tech stocks and nearly $5 trillion in market value wiped out.

My point is not “don't worry, be happy.” In fact, I don't think we’ve seen in at least a generation the systemic mess that's staring at us today. But I do think we have weathered storms before. Perspective is important, and unfortunately, I think were going to need it.

The government may not want to face more market catastrophes, but if it was only that easy. In a classic bank run scenario, IndyMac could be just the beginning. According to one analyst, as many as 300 banks could fall within the next three years.

While the feds can't save everybody, they know they have to draw a line in the sand when it comes to Fannie and Freddie. But while extending hundreds of billions in credit and propping up the stock hopefully stops the bleeding, nobody thinks it cures the patient. The public is scared, confused and frustrated with a system and a marketplace that seems to be selling different truths by the week, changing rules on the fly and can't get its own act together. The feds had to rescue the twin mortgage giants, but just like everybody else in the financial sector they're infected with the sub-prime virus and really don't know just how bad they've got it.

Here's what I know. They're will be more writedowns, big ones at the biggest firms. More banks will close, and not just the mom and pop variety either. More people will be laid off and expect a lot more foreclosures.

What we don't know is how bad this will all get. If anybody knew mortgages, the thinking went, it was Fannie and Freddie. Now nobody thinks anybody really has a clue. Efforts to stabilize the market haven't worked and in an ominous sign treasury bills were being sold not bought, a sign investors aren't even running to the one sure thing they've always been able to count on.

Here's the scary part: they may be on to something. If Fannie and Freddie have to be saved at all costs, who do you think will do the saving? You got it: we the taxpayers! Don't believe the dummies who tell you debt and deficits don't matter; they do, and are already eating more and more of our budgets for just interest payments.

People are starting to get all the pieces of the puzzle - gas prices, credit crunch, housing crisis, layoffs...etc. They don't like the picture that's coming together.

I don't know the prescription for recovery, but I do know it won't be quick and painless. The faith and confidence of the public is shaken and if our leaders aren't careful the next shoe that drops will turn that fear into something worse. These are perilous times.

In a year of economic uncertainty, the only given seems to be more bad news. But before anyone chalks the Fanny and Freddy story up as just more bad news, you’d better sit down. The two mortgage giants hold more than half of the nearly $10 trillion in U.S. debt. Let that sink in…$5 trillion.

If a movie producer is searching for a storyline for the next horror flick, they may want to consider crawling into the heads of Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chairman Bernanke. For now, their saying all the right things, but the fear and building panic on Wall Street is almost palpable.

If either Freddy or Fannie, or god forbid both, fail we are talking havoc on the nation's financial system and the broader economy as well.

By law the mortgage giants are required to hold only a fraction of what's mandated for commercial banks as financial cushion against risk. Translation: no money under the mattress for a rainy day, and yes, it's pouring outside.

Freddy and Fannie were created because congress wanted to have a steady stream of money for home mortgages, and they have. In many ways they're more important than ever, since our government is depending on them to provide much-needed mortgage financing at a time when credit has gotten much harder to come by.

As we speak, every official is trying to talk investors off the ledge, but don't kid yourself, at the same time they're preparing for the worst. Would the government throw these giants a lifeline? They hate bailouts, but really, what’s their choice?

Nobody knows how this movie ends but consider what Bernanke himself had to say two years ago when talking about the massive holdings of Freddie and Fannie. The two, he said, "present a systematic risk" to our financial system.

Let’s just hope this is a scary flick with a happy ending.

It all started with Barack Obama's decision to forego public financing. Immediately, charges that he had "broken a promise" were thrown about; in the fall of 2007, in a questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network, Obama said he would take part in the public financing system if his Republican opponent did the same. John McCain made Obama's decision to abandon public financing a whole lot easier by breaking the law in plain sight:

I mentioned earlier today that it was quite a thing to see John McCain denouncing Barack Obama for breaking his word on public financing when McCain himself is at this moment breaking the law in continuing to spend over the spending limits he promised to abide by through the primary season in exchange for public financing. (By the FEC's rules, we're still in the primary phase of the election and will be until the conventions.)

So while Obama certainly reversed course, it's hardly the flip-flopping betrayal of principle that the media and McCain's campaign (is there a difference?) portrayed it as. Obama is still an advocate of campaign finance reform, having passed legislation as both an IL state senator and U.S. senator. Even one of the original authors of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act approved:

Norm Ornstein, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and substantial contributor to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act -- also known as the "McCain-Feingold" campaign finance legislation -- said on Thursday that Obama's move was "pragmatically the right decision to make," and that, if the Senator had not chosen that path, "I would have sued him for political malpractice...

"When you have the ability to raise the kind of money that he could raise and do it without selling your soul to spend all the time between now and the election on fundraisers, your goal is to win an election and not turn your back on the people voting. There will be outraged editorials and McCain will be justifiably pi$$ed. But it was pragmatically the right decision for him to make."

But all that is complicated stuff, so "Obama flip-flops on public financing" was the take-away. And while liberals merely yawned, the seed was sown.

Next came a series of potential landmines in the campaign trail, courtesy of SCOTUS. First, in D.C. vs Heller, the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns, something Obama had previously contended was constitutional; now he supported the Court's decision. While conceding that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," Obama reiterated his support for the 2nd Amendment, and pointed to Justice Scalia's affirmation of the need for regulation. The left grumbled. Despite any evidence D.C.'s ban actually worked, many on the left don't consider any gun regulation open for negotiation.

Then came Obama's opposition to the Court's ban on the death penalty for child rapists. More grumbling from the base over a supposed betrayal of their principles, but the fact is Obama never changed his position, one he wrote about in his book, "The Audacity of Hope." But again, the perception was that Obama was moving away from the Democratic base.

This feeling was compounded when he announced his decision to expand faith-based charities as president. The base howled. This was one of George W. Bush's more blatant attempts at funneling money towards his supporters on the religious right, and Obama was going to expand that? Outrageous! Except that wasn't the case:

I don't actually have a problem with money going to church-linked organizations as long as they aren't exempt from oversight or anti-discrimination laws and don't proselytize. Early Associated Press reports incorrectly stated that Obama would allow such organizations to discriminate in hiring based on religion, but that apparently is not the case.

As with all of these things the devil is in the details, but there's nothing wrong with supporting good programs.

Again, not a flip-flop, but a perceived shift towards the center, or worse, the right, when in fact Obama hadn't moved at all. Some of Obama's supporters understood the nuances of each of these positions; others did not. But none of them took kindly to this:

“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.
......
“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives — and the liberty — of the American people.”

The liberal blogosphere's response?

EPIC FAIL

One of the basic principles for organzing conservatives is, if it angers liberals, it must be a good thing. Was this the final piece of evidence that Obama - like just about every presidential candidate before him - was tacking to the center after securing his party's nomination? Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas thought so, and withheld donations because of it:

There is a line between "moving to the center" and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, he's been doing a lot of unnecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides.

What's more, Obama's appeal to the "mushy middle" may be a recipe for disaster:

The Obama brand has always been about inspiration, a new kind of politics, the audacity of hope, and "change we can believe in." I like that brand. More importantly, voters -- especially unlikely voters -- like that brand.

Pulling it off the shelf and replacing it with a political product geared to pleasing America's vacillating swing voters -- the ones who will be most susceptible to the fear-mongering avalanche that has already begun -- would be a fatal blunder.

Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another.

Of all the positions that anger liberals, Obama’s switch from promising to support a filibuster against the surveillance bill to eventually voting for a “compromise” that wasn’t will undoubtedly be the one that hurts him the most. It wasn’t a subtle “refining” of his position; it was a reversal, and one that didn’t have the benefit of any reasonable logic to back it up other than political expediency. Obama doesn’t want to waste any energy combating Republican attacks that “he doesn’t want us to spy on terrorists” (even thought they’ll attack him on that and other nat’l security issues anyway). With this one move, Obama has dampened supporters’ enthusiasm and taken some of the sheen off his political aura. While it may not cost him many votes in the long run, it will definitely cost him donations. Given his fundraising prowess, this may not be a problem, but it certainly doesn’t improve his standing with anyone. Informed independents and Democrats already opposed warrantless wiretapping and telecomm immunity; the only ones who supported it were National Security Authoritarians Republicans and some Blue Dog congressmen, none of whom who were going to vote for him anyway.

To minimize this, Obama directly addressed the claims that he’s moving to the center (if not the claims of his betrayal on FISA):

Barack Obama had heard quite enough of the complaints that he is pirouetting, leaping, lurching even, toward the political center.

He is at heart, he told a crowd in suburban Atlanta, a pretty progressive guy who just happens to pack along a complicated world view.

“Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center,” he said. “The people who say this apparently haven’t been listening to me.”

To this, he adds, parenthetically: “And I must say some of this is my friends on the left” and those in the media.

“I am someone who is no doubt progressive,” he said, adding that he believes in universal health care and that government has a strong to play in overseeing financial institutions and cracking down on abuses in bankruptcies and the like.

Bloggers are a passionate bunch. And to move the nation on a controversial issue, you need passionate people to drag the herd in the right direction. But sometimes that passion gets in the way of more pragmatic thinking, and it’s at times like these when it does well to stop, take a deep breath, and consider the alternatives:

Inevitably, in a national campaign, the smart Democratic candidate is going to do things that (tick) me off — I’m going to vote for them anyways! Whether the Barrow endorsement was an attempt to push the GOP into more spending in safe states (if an Obama endorsement can help an inveterate blue dog like that, the guy must be running towards the center) or whether it had some other justification, whether the FISA compromise reflects sound political calculation or a craven casting-aside of principles or something in-between, at this point I’m going to swallow hard and trust the Obama campaign to do what it has to do to win, because I’ll tell you one thing: with a Democrat — any Democrat — in the White House, things will be a whole (lot) better than they’ve been.

If I ever meet a politician who lines up with ever last one of my views on every single issue, I’ll simply jump on my magic carpet, fly over to Yankee Stadium to bat in the cleanup spot, and go home to my wife, Keira Knightley, because I’ll know I’m dreaming.

You can’t always get what you want, but sometimes, you get what you need.

12 days ago the Army fired Gina Gray. Who's Gina Gray, you ask? Just the latest person shoved aside who tried to do the right thing in a war whose architects have, without fail, done the wrong thing.

About three months ago, Ms. Gray took over as the Public Affairs Director at the Arlington National Cemetery. Soon after her appointment she realized military regulations were being violated; the media was being denied access to coverage of funerals of the Iraq war dead, even after the soldiers’ families granted permission. She fought to enforce protocol but was first demoted, then later canned. More than having policy and judgment on her side, Ms. Gray also has experience. She served in Iraq, had her convoy attacked and has impaired hearing to prove it.

A lot has improved under Defense Secretary Gates, but garbage like stop losses, the shortchanging of our troops and what happened to Gina Gray are still far too common.

If the powers that be thought about it instead of being so myopic, they'd realize the families’ courage and grace in sharing their loss lets the public become more invested in a war that for too long has been shielded from view at all costs.

Like no other time in history, the public has not been called on for shared sacrifice. Instead we are told "don't worry, be happy," or unforgettably, to go shopping.

Who is this administration, the same administration who embedded troops when the going was good, to now override family wishes for their own loved ones?

I have never seen a single media story that has trivialized a soldier’s death in Iraq or Afghanistan. By shielding America from caskets coming home, not attending funerals, not showing grieving families, this White House leaves us with the numbers of the dead and an occasional picture. No connection; no investment in a war were told has to be waged.

Gina Gray deserved better, and so do we.

For anybody who still believes the economic mess we find ourselves in was a perfect storm or some unforeseeable crisis, I suggest you read the recently released report from the long dormant Securities and Exchange Commission. The agency that has been ridiculed for fiddling while Wall Street and our economy burned concluded in their investigation that the rating firms - beyond a shadow of a doubt - where more than just part of the problem, they all but lit the match.

A little background. Rating agencies have been considered the unimpeachable objective voice of Wall Street. They’re supposed to review the financial health of everything large and small so the investor, public or private, can invest with confidence. I said supposedly because as e-mail trails from the big three rating firms conclude, these guys knew the Titanic of the mortgage mess was heading for an iceberg, but instead of shouting “iceberg ahead!” they said “full speed ahead!”

Beyond the pure greed there was also the fact these guys couldn't keep up with the workload. Instead of doing their homework and the due diligence investors expected, they took shortcuts.

But there was more. Analysts, we all believed, rated products simply on their financial health. Instead at Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch, analysts openly worried that a fair but tough rating might cost the firm business.

The bottom line here is that the roosters were guarding the henhouse, and all investors were none the wiser. When I say all investors, I mean you. It wasn't just the fact cats that thought they were investing in triple-A rated products when in reality they were buying garbage drowning in sub-prime debt. It was anybody with a 401k or state pension plans that didn't know it was “buyer beware.”

The investigations and lawsuits will soon begin, but the hard truth is there was a ponzi scheme being run in New York; not on a street corner but in the corner office of the ivory tower of Wall Street.

On RFL we get into issues like remembering fallen soldiers from our region, investigating the latest hold up at Ground Zero and the huge consequences on our doctors and hospitals with Medicare cuts. But let me tell you what I don't plan on covering. Don't hold your breath if you think I’m going to get into A-rod's marital woes or possible affair with the Material Girl. Turn the channel if you want the latest on Christie Brinkley’s latest ugly divorce. I'm not getting into this stuff, not because I’m holier than thou or out of some false sense of journalistic ethos; I’m not talking about this garbage because I couldn't care less.

Now I may be many things, but an I’m not an idiot. I know full well every daily tabloid in New York has Rodriguez, Madonna, assorted boyfriends and spouses plastered on its front and back pages.

But by now when the subject of the latest dingbat starlet, Hollywood scandal or breakup comes up, people affiliated with this program know to skip it because I just won't spend my time on stuff you see on the rags at the supermarket checkout line.

But because we are an interactive program that pays more than lip service to the premise that you the viewer have a stake in the show, the least I owe those who ask why we ignore these kind of stories is a reason.

My wife would be more than happy to tell you I spend way too much time following the Yankees, but you could not pay me to have the faintest interest in the latest drama with A-rod. I want the guy to hit the ball, catch the ball and throw the ball. I couldn’t care less about who he sleeps with or whose arms his jilted wife is running into. Like other entertainers, his job is to entertain me. I am not invested in their lives; don't want to live vicariously through them; am not pained or overjoyed by their personal lives. I've never understood people who are devastated by a Hollywood couple breakup. They don't care about your relationship and almost always don't ask you to care about theirs. Here’s a novel concept: Worry about your own life and stop trolling for gossip on others or feed the beast that is the cottage industry of the new media.

I love the people who rail against the intrusive papparazzi, but are the first in line to snatch the latest issue of the magazine's with glossy covers of Britney Spears’ latest meltdown, pouring gas on a situation everybody knows is close to flameout.

Or how about those lovely spreads of one cellulite backside after another, where the magazine asks you to match the actress with her butt (a picture, may I add, they often snap when she's walking on the beach with her kids)? Just curious how many of you ladies would like some photog stalking you for an unflattering shot in a bikini?

But let me come back to my main point. While I find it ugly for readers to follow the latest flavor's bulimia watch, or other assorted human frailties - why in god's name does anyone care?

Now I can almost hear the person saying, “Wait a second, Rich. How come it's okay to go nuts over a lawmaker with a hooker or playing footsie in an airport men's room?”

Here's the difference:

Politicians ask us for our votes and more importantly, as was the case with Spitzer and Craig, play moralists in judgment and governance of other's lives.

In the end I won't spend time on these tabloid stories because there inane, I couldn't care less and most importantly, I refuse to feed the beast. Do me a favor, even if you think I’m dead wrong, or I don't get it, objectively step back and look at what all these stories have in common. They delight in the misery of others. The sheer joy the tabloids are having with the Rodriguez story is off the charts. I remember the good laugh a few people had looking through the pics of Britney’s latest follies in child care. We are talking about a child, right?

How about the morbid fascination with the body bag of Heath Ledger? It gave me the creeps. Look at reality TV, bullying on-line…the list goes on and on.

So get a grip, get a hobby, get a life. This garbage isn't news, it's rubbernecking on the human highway of self destruction. You can stop for a gawk, but I won't be putting up the pictures.

This tragedy ought to make every one of us sick and mad for two very different reasons. First, of course, is the impossible contradiction of the promise of our hospitals to save and care for their patients versus the video of staffers treating Esmin Green as road kill to be ignored in dying and death. Area residents may have been shocked by the video, but few were truly surprised.

Kings County Hospital, and others like it, are America’s dirty little secret. They’re where we send our poor and mentally ill to get whatever care they can get, out of sight, out of mind. The only reason the case is now on our radar is because the video became public. But don't kid yourself; this wasn't one bad day at the hospital, this was just one caught on camera.

About a year ago, a state agency filed a lawsuit calling the psychiatric center at Kings County Hospital "a chamber of filth, decay indifference and danger...Patients are subjected to overcrowded and squalid conditions often accompanied by physical abuse and unnecessary and punitive injections of mind altering drugs...From the moment a person steps through the doors, she is stripped of her freedom and dignity and literally forced to fight for the essentials of life."

The suit said the hospital's emergency ward was the worst of the worst; patients marooned for days, literally forced to sit on the floor, bathrooms filthy and fly ridden, and that patients with the temerity to complain too loudly are sometimes handcuffed, beaten or injected with psychotropic drugs.

We should all be outraged and we should all demand change; but there is the other part of this story that is part of a bigger problem with our society. Esmin Green writhed in pain and died in front of staffers, security guards and patients and nobody lifted a finger.

A month ago in Hartford, CT, Angel Torres was struck in broad daylight on a crowded street. As the 78 year-old lay motionless on the road, the hit and run sped off and passerbys and motorists just looked on. Angel Torres will be on a ventilator for the rest of his life.

Last year a 43 year-old woman writhed on a L.A. County Hospital floor; again, no one could be bothered to lift a finger. When her boyfriend begged the police for help, he was arrested for a parole violation.

It is said we should be judged as a society by how we treat the least among us. If that's the standard, I suggest we are in deep trouble.

Gen. Wesley Clark had the temerity to suggest that John McCain's military service, admirable as it was, might not automatically qualify him for president.

Cue the Mother of All Hissy Fits! Conservative blogs were outraged!....Even more than usual. McCain's base, the media, excoriated Clark for "criticizing" McCain's military record - even though Clark did no such thing. As with certain high-profile teevee pundits making bone-headed rookie mistakes - repeatedly - these network anchors are well-paid enough to master the simple art of reading comprehension:

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

Some even suggested Clark's comments were an attempt at "Swiftboating." But that word does not mean what they think it means:

Now that “swift-boating” has entered the vernacular, let us remember that the original SwiftBoat Veterans for “Truth” were for the most part neither in their hope to take down Kerry’s candidacy. Has Wesley Clark in some way made any untrue allegations in saying that being a POW and a non-combat era fighter pilot does not necessarily qualify you for the highest elected office in the land?

Not according to John McCain:

Clark’s argument that military service is not sufficient alone to be president is an argument that has been made by McCain himself:

- During an interview with National Journal, John McCain was asked if “military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief.” McCain said, “Absolutely not…I absolutely don’t believe that it’s necessary.” [National Journal, 2/15/2003]

- I believe that military service is the most honorable endeavor an American may undertake. But I’ve never believed that lack of military service disqualifies one from occupying positions of political leadership or as Commander and Chief. In America, the people are sovereign, and they decide who is and is not qualified to lead us. [American Legion Speech, 9/7/1999]

- Earlier this year at Washington’s Gridiron Club, where humor is the required fare, McCain lay bare what underlies his candidacy. Wearing a jacket outlandishly festooned with dozens of fake military medals, McCain said, “The question I ask myself every morning while shaving in front of the mirror is: OK, John, you’re an incredible war hero, an inspiration to all Americans. But what qualifies you to be president of the United States?” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 11/7/1999]

Of course, that was the old John McCain. The "new" (but still old) John McCain thinks differently, and is apparently impervious to irony:

In hopes of nipping any criticism in the bud, the [McCain] campaign brought on board a man quite familiar with how these types of attacks gain legs: Bud Day, a fellow POW who was part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that worked so hard to defame Sen. John Kerry's own Vietnam record.

McCain's campaign would prefer that the only person to talk about McCain's service should be McCain. He mentions it constantly, and even has footage of his tiome as a POW in a campaign ad. So that pretty much puts it on the table. And Josh Marshall at TPM thinks it's a good discussion to have:

Does McCain's military record mean that even the Democrats have to concede the point that he's more qualified to be commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, that his foreign and national security policy judgment is superior to Obama's? It's simply a fact that McCain has a record of really poor judgment on a whole list of key foreign policy and national security questions.

His apparent willingness to bomb Iran first and ask questions later, for example.

But all this is beside the point. For years, one of conservatives' bread and butter plays was smearing the military service of anyone* who disagreed with them, Bush, the Iraq War or any aspect of the GWOT (* see John Kerry, Scott Beauchamp, and of course Gen. Wesley Clark).

And while Clark said his comments were his own and did not represent Barack Obama's views in any way, conservatives are still trying to tie the two together:

If the willingness to fight for your country, put your life on the line and suffer the brutality McCain suffered as a POW doesn't make the cut as far as qualifications go, how far below that does a "community organizer" show up on the list of non-qualifications?

Let me see if I can explain this.

On the left is Barack Obama's experience as a community organizer. On the right is John McCain's military service. You can make juice out of both, but beyond that, they aren't really comparable and shouldn't be the only considerations when ordering breakfast.

Or electing a president.