Kotecki TV...Say No More

48 Second Water Balloon

Nunn, Boren Back Obama

Former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA), "who toyed with the concept of a non-partisan run for president last year," endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

"The former senator, considered one of the nation's preeminent experts on U.S. defense, met with Obama's foreign policy team this morning, we're told."

"Though not a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, Nunn carries a deal of gravitas in foreign policy from which Obama could benefit. As one himself, Nunn could also help reassure conservative Democrats still suspicious of Obama's position on the left-right political spectrum."

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe notes former Sen. David Boren (D-OK), another conservative Southern Democrat, also announced he would back Obama.

Ben Smith calls the endorsements "an acknowledgment that Obama's message has pretty well absorbed the high aspirations of the group Unity '08."

Road Trip into Blue America

David Jackson previews McCain's upcoming road trip into the heart of Blue America:

Starting Monday, the presumptive GOP nominee for president will stop in Alabama's "Black Belt," then move on to the struggling steel town of Youngstown, Ohio, and the Appalachian region of Kentucky. The Arizona senator is also trying to make it to New Orleans, which is still recovering from 2005's Hurricane Katrina.

"I want to tell people living there that there must not be any forgotten parts of America, any forgotten Americans," McCain told newspaper editors this week.

"A lot of moderate white voters want a president who can reach out to the disadvantaged," said John Pitney, a former House GOP aide and government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "So McCain has to show he's making the effort."

Much of McCain's itinerary is in heavily Democratic areas.

McCain is slated to spend part of Monday in the heart of the Black Belt, which is named for the region's dark soil. The congressional district that includes this region voted for Democrat John Kerry over Bush in 2004 and is 62% black.

"Bitter" in the mail...Fall Preview

Of course, how it works in a GOP primary isn't quite clear. Shaner tries it like this:

"And although Republicans don’t have a competitive race for President, you can send a loud and clear message back to Obama by coming out and supporting candidates who share our values."

My thought is this...when is the last time the "Guns and God" voter cast their vote for a Democrat? So is this really that big of a deal? It could be if it helps bring more Republicans out to vote but the real question is...how do Independents react to the "Bitter" comment?

Debate Reaction

In a severe case of bad timing -- just days before the Pennsylvania primary -- Sen. Barack Obama gave his worst performance in a debate so far last night. It's not that Sen. Hillary Clinton "won" the debate, but Obama clearly lost it.

If you missed it, check out the "bests and mosts" from CQ Politics.

Chuck Todd: "Overall, with the spotlight on him very bright, Obama didn't step up. He got rattled early on and never picked his game back up. Clinton wasn't very warm (outside of he first few minutes), but she didn't have the spotlight on her very bright. And as we've noted here quite a few times, whenever the spotlight is on one candidate, the other seems to benefit. Last night, the spotlight was on Obama, and for a short period of time, expect Clinton to benefit. But the question is whether she can sustain any benefit since as the negativity goes on, she pays a bigger price than Obama. Let's see what Pennsylvania decides in five days. A big Clinton victory and this debate will be seen as an important turning point. But a narrow victory (less than five points) and she could find herself facing more calls to get out."

Walter Shapiro: "This was not an evening that will shimmer in Obama's memory book."

Andrew Sullivan: "It was a lifeless, exhausted, drained and dreary Obama we saw tonight. I've seen it before when he is tired, but this was his worst performance yet on national television. He seemed crushed and unable to react. This is big-time politics and he's up against the Clinton wood-chipper. But there is no disguising the fact that he wilted, painfully."

Marc Ambinder: "Keeping the score card, there's no way Obama could have fared worse. Nearly 45 minutes of relentless political scrutiny from the ABC anchors and from Hillary Clinton, followed by an issues-and-answers session in which his anger carried over and sort of neutered him. But Hillary Clinton has a Reverse-Teflon problem: her negatives are up, and when she's perceived as the attacker, the attacks never seem to settle on Obama and always seem to boomerang back on her."

Josh Marshall: "I don't think this debate will have much effect on the direction of the race. In fact, I've learned from past... experience that the candidate who wins on points in a debate often doesn't come out with the best result."

Joe Klein: "My guess is that Obama, simply by pointing out the dopiness of the questions in the first half of the debate, probably emerged from this better than Clinton did."

Justice Stevens' change of heart

(Q) Justice John Paul Stevens, the Chicago native who once was part of a Supreme Court majority that reinstated the death penalty in America in 1976, Wednesday indicated for the first time that he believes capital punishment is unconstitutional.

Writing to concur in the court's judgment in Baze v. Rees, the case out of Kentucky that questioned whether the method used for executing prisoners was unconstitutionally harmful, Stevens said he had become convinced that the death penalty no longer served a legitimate societal function.

Stevens noted that that when the Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, it did so by identifying three purposes served by capital punishment: 1) incapacitation of the offender; 2) deterrence and 3) retribution.

He wrote that with the advent of longer prisoner sentences and the option of a life term without parole made incapacitation a weaker rationale. He then questioned whether the death penalty deters crime, long a subject of debate among researchers. "Despite 30 years of empirical research in the area, there is no reliable statistical evidence that capital punishment in fact deters potential offenders," he said. Continue reading @ Swamp Politics

Bush and big crowd greet pope on his birthday

(Q) Pope Benedict XVI chose to address bluntly the sex scandal that has torn at the church here even before he landed Tuesday on his first official visit to the United States, saying he was “deeply ashamed” by the actions of pedophile priests.

His comments aboard his plane, in answer to a written question submitted by a reporter and selected by the Vatican, appeared to soothe many Catholics but left others demanding more action than words.

“It’s difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betrayed in this way their mission to give healing, to give the love of God to these children,” the pope said, adding that the church would work to exclude pedophiles from the priesthood.

“It is more important to have good priests than to have many priests,” he said.

The words were his strongest ever on the issue, one he clearly wanted to emphasize as he arrived on a six-day visit to Washington and New York. His comments were in response to the first of four questions he answered on the plane — chosen from 20 the press corps had submitted in advance.

It was unclear whether these would be the last words from Benedict on the issue, which ruptured the faith between parishioners and priests and has cost the church some $2 billion, or whether it was an opening signal of both reconciliation and more to come. Church officials have said they expected the pope to address the scandal more than once during his visit, and there is speculation that he may even meet with some victims. Continue @ NYT

Sunday Cartoon

Joseph Stiglitz On The Economy

(Q) An interview with Joseph Stiglitz, the Columbia Professor who is a Nobel Prize-winning economist, with his overview of the economy.

Stiglitz recent books include Globalization and Its Discontents (2003) and Making Globalization Work (2006).

The professor pulls no punches -- about the economy, President Bush, and Fed Chair Bernanke.

Same Ol', Same Ol'

CORPORATE WELFARE UPDATE....The housing bill easily passed the Senate on Thursday:

The most expensive item is a tax break for homebuilders and other money-losing businesses that would cost the federal government more than $25 billion over the next three years. Missing entirely: A new mechanism to aid borrowers who can't afford their mortgage payments and, due to falling home prices, owe their banks more than their homes are worth, the group most at risk of foreclosure.

One of the bill's chief sponsors, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), called the measure "a major, positive step in the right direction," but he acknowledged that the package offers little in direct aid to the nearly 8,000 families thrown into foreclosure each day.

I'm totally conflicted on foreclosure aid. Is it a good idea because lots of people are hurting and need help — and if Wall Street is going to get help, why not the little guys too? Or is it a bad idea because it just helps to prop up housing prices, extending a bubble that needs to be allowed to pop?

I'm not sure. But that $25 billion tax break? No conflict there. It's right up there with ethanol subsidies in the pantheon of outlandishly rapacious corporate welfare legislation. Daniel Gross explains:

The technical term for this is a tax-loss carryback. But it should perhaps be known as a bubble-head tax break....Homebuilders argue that they need relief because their sector, which provides a great deal of domestic employment, is on the ropes, and they're finding it more difficult to raise capital. Which is as it should be. After bubbles pop, those who screwed up really badly fail and get taken over by creditors or opportunistic investors. Those who have sound underlying franchises but merely got a little carried away can survive if they take painful restructuring moves. This is what is known as market capitalism.

....The proposal to give new tax breaks to homebuilders and banks is yet another example of the pernicious trend of privatizing profit and socializing losses, which is gnawing away at faith in the system. Dilute the shareholders, not the taxpayers.

The "he gets it" quote is "the pernicious trend of privatizing profit and socializing losses"
The old addage, Americans dislike socialism is a falsehood.
I grant, socialism for the individual goes against the grain of American ethos in Individualism but Corporate Welfare has been rife for over a hundred years and Thursday's bailout of Corporate Financial America is just another example in a long line...Lee Iacocca

Will Clinton Over-Reach?

Courtesy Andrew Sullivan
The "bitter" spat is gold for Morris-Rove politics, which is why Clinton is exploiting it so baldly. It is exactly the kind of debate that has constructed American politics since Vietnam; it is exactly the kind of politics that Obama has been trying to transcend. Clinton will use anything at this point to destroy Obama's candidacy and message; but by adopting Rovism at its reddest, the Clintons do risk looking too obvious. Check out the comments in CNN's Politicker. At some point people will realize that the Clintons represent a continuation of the kind of politics that has made a serious engagement with this country's profound problems impossible. Or is acknowledging profound problems now unpatriotic?

Is this election about how to salvage the least worst option in the Iraq disaster? Is it about restoring some kind of fiscal sanity? Is it about doing all we can to unite Americans in a war against Islamic terrorism? Is it about restoring America's compliance with the Geneva Conventions? Or is it again about red-blue culture wars? We know what the professional political class is comfortable with. We know what Rove and Bush and Penn and Clinton believe. What we will find out soon is if Americans want more of the same. It's a free country - and people can vote. Goodbye to all that? Or hello again - for yet another cycle? A reader writes:

I am a rustbelt native. I live near Gary, Indiana and have never lived anywhere else. I’ll probably die here.

I read and, more importantly, listened to Barack Obama’s response to the Clinton cacophony after his remarks about blue collar/regular people/rustbelt voters. The difference between the two politicians is amazing. One is thoughtful and unafraid while defending a politically risky yet righteous position. The other is just noise.


My husband and I already have one child and grandchild living thousands of miles away and I fully expect the other to leave within a few years. I don’t blame them. In fact I always encouraged them to leave because I wanted them to realize the full measure of their talents and abilities and that isn’t possible here.

Obama’s right about guns and religion in that there simply isn’t much to do in an economically depressed area but hunt and pray. There’s nothing insulting or elitist about this, but people can be easily persuaded that an elitist has indeed insulted them.

That’s what worries me. People will forget their interests, will forget that their children are moving away en masse, will forget the political idiocy of the Clintonian hypocrisy that inspires Howard Beale-like angst in all of us. They may forget all of that just for the misguided privilege of feeling insulted.

And that's their right. Americans have had the presidency they deserved these past four years; the war they voted to continue; the debt they voted to increase; the incompetence they decided to reward. They also get to pick who comes next. If they want more of the same, they know who to vote for.

AP Confirms ABC News

Torture latest:

Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned. The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue. They knew what they were doing. The law was "fixed" to back up what was already decided.

The parallel to WMD intelligence - the Downing Street memo - springs to mind.

And now more...Courtesy Andrew Sullivan

While the blogosphere explodes dissecting how big a snob Obama is, the president of the United States cops to authorizing torture:

Bush also said in an interview with ABC News that he approved of the meetings, which were held as the CIA began to prepare for a secret interrogation program that included waterboarding, or simulated drowning, and other coercive techniques.

"Well, we started to connect the dots, in order to protect the American people" by learning what various detainees knew, Bush said in the interview at the presidential ranch here. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

The remarks underscore the extent to which the top officials were directly involved in setting the controversial interrogation policies.

Bush suggested in the interview that no one should be surprised that his senior advisers, including Vice President Cheney, would discuss details of the interrogation program. "I told the country we did that," Bush said. "And I also told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it."

Notice that for this president, the law is an obstacle to be overcome with opinions he orders up from his underlings. Also, can't you just see the president really wants to tell the people "you can't handle the truth!" Whether it be wrong or right....

Obama: No Backing Down!

One thing I like about Barack Obama is that when he hands himself lemons, he tries to make lemonade as you see in his response to those who criticized his characterization of the public mood in Pennsylvania. Recall that the whole meetings with the political leadership of rogue states started as a gaffe, but eventually became a synecdoche for willingness to move beyond the conventional wisdom of a broken establishment.

I have no idea whether this particular response to this particular controversy will "work" but it's still the correct approach and one that shows, I think, a more sophisticated grasp of media dynamics than we've seen from most Democrats over the past few years. Courtesy Matthew Yglesias
Barack Obama's original San Francisco statement here

Obama Closing in on Clinton in Pennsylvania

Sen. Barack Obama is catching up with Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, according to a new Quinnipiac poll. Clinton now leads by just 6 points, 50% to 44%, among likely voters.

Last week Clinton had a 9 point lead in the poll.

Said pollster Clay Richards:

"With two weeks to go, Sen. Barack Obama is knocking on the door of a major political upset in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Obama is not only building on his own constituencies, but is taking away voters in Sen. Hillary Clinton's strongest areas - whites including white women, voters in the key swing Philadelphia suburbs and those who say the economy is the most important issue in the campaign."

Jayhawks Defeat Tigers In OT For First National Title in 20 Years

Click to see ESPN Video

Obama On Patriotism In Montana

More, please:

I love this country not because it's perfect, but because we've always been able to move it closer to perfection. Because through revolution and slavery; war and depression; great battles for civil rights and women's rights and worker's rights, generations of Americans have shown their love of country by struggling and sacrificing and risking their lives to bring us that much closer to our founding promise. And as long as I live, I will never forget that I am only standing here because they did... That is the country I love. That is the promise of America.

Our Daily Bread

(Q) The NYT reported on the price of rice last week:

The price of rice, a staple in the diets of nearly half the world’s population, has almost doubled on international markets in the last three months. That has pinched the budgets of millions of poor Asians and raised fears of civil unrest.

Paul Krugman devotes his column today to the rising price of grain worldwide:

Governments and private grain dealers used to hold large inventories in normal times, just in case a bad harvest created a sudden shortage. Over the years, however, these precautionary inventories were allowed to shrink, mainly because everyone came to believe that countries suffering crop failures could always import the food they needed.

This left the world food balance highly vulnerable to a crisis affecting many countries at once — in much the same way that the marketing of complex financial securities, which was supposed to diversify away risk, left world financial markets highly vulnerable to a systemwide shock.

Courtesy Andrew Sullivan

Top 14 Reasons Mark Penn Coulda/Shoulda Been Fired by Hillary

(Q) Courtesy Mark Halperin
1. He insisted on a message of “experience” in a “change” election.

2. He brought his near absence of visible professional humanity to a candidate that needs humanizing more than most.

3. He treated his colleagues with disdain.

4. He refused to give up his lucrative private sector work, even for clients who were politically toxic within the party.

5. He billed the campaign premium rates for his firm’s services.

6. He had little or no experience in winning Democratic nomination battles.

7. He simultaneously served as pollster and chief strategist — and no campaign should have as its
chief strategist its pollster or admaker.

8. He was an off-putting and gaffe-prone television, conference call, and post-debate surrogate.

9. He was a lightning rod for media and labor criticism.

10 He fought against the good ideas of his colleagues about how to reshape Clinton’s image.

11. He fostered a sense of ill will and distrust with virtually all of Clinton’s other top advisers, stifled creativity, and blurred lines of authority.

12. He can be a temperamental, often immature presence.

13. He appeared to refuse to take any responsibility for Clinton’s losses.

14. His work and strategic advice highlighted many of Clinton’s greatest perceived weaknesses: accusations of a say-one-thing-do-another ethos; charges of being too centrist; support for the Iraq War; coziness with Washington lobbyists and special interests; ties to certain less-beloved aspects of her husband’s presidency.

The story reads:
Mark Penn, the pollster who has advised Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1996, stepped down under pressure on Sunday as the chief political strategist for Mrs. Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign after his private business arrangements again clashed with her campaign positions. Read full story at New York Times

McCain keeps up with California talk

(Q) It's no secret that the McCain camp hopes to expand the map past the old red/blue divide, but the candidate himself seems to have one state in mind that most strategists in both parties see as being in safe Dem hands: California.

When I asked McCain last month in New Hampshire a general question about competing in left-leaning states, he immediately cited California (even though we were standing in a much more attainable blue state).

And now this morning, when asked by Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" about his intent to appeal to non-traditonal GOP voters, McCain pivoted again to the Big Enchilada.

"California can no longer be written off in my view," McCain said. "And that means going to all parts of that state and reaching out to Hispanic voters, independents, others."

Now, whether McCain will be speeding up and down The 5 on the Straight Talk Express in late October is an open question.

But it's apparent that the candidate — who has a place on Coronado and has been called "the third senator from California" — wants to at least give it a shot.

Something that, in early April, offers much more upside than not for somebody trying to persuade donors in the state to part with their cash.