Deep tweets: Holy See

Best capture of the moment I saw all day on the social nets.

Like this photo. via @hardknoxfirst pic.twitter.com/oL8lpRIubl
— Hudsonette (@hudsonette) March 27, 2014

Dancing with my selfie

Nelson Mandela's memorial service was an important occasion of international import. Yet with all the possible news to cover, the media went wild over Obama's selfie with David Cameron and Denmark's very attractive (blonde) Prime Minister Helle Thorning Schmidt. Thus ensued a tidal wave of thinly veiled snark about "angry black woman" Michelle Obama who was pictured looking serious, or (if you're a pro journo looking for clickbait)a  pissed off wife. Nearly everyone got it wrong and not just about Michelle Obama. Yes it said a lot about our bias, but no, taking the selfie was not disrespectful in any way. Funerals are not somber events in Africa. Surely the media saw the parties in the streets when Mandela died. They apparently do not mourn death there as we do. They celebrate the life of the person who passed. As for the misconstrued photo, let's let the photographer explain the selfie:

I’d been there since the crack of dawn and when I took this picture, the memorial ceremony had already been going on for more than two hours. [...]

Anyway, suddenly this woman pulled out her mobile phone and took a photo of herself smiling with Cameron and the US president. I captured the scene reflexively. All around me in the stadium, South Africans were dancing, singing and laughing to honour their departed leader. It was more like a carnival atmosphere, not at all morbid. The ceremony had already gone on for two hours and would last another two. The atmosphere was totally relaxed – I didn’t see anything shocking in my viewfinder, president of the US or not. We are in Africa.[...]

I later read on social media that Michelle Obama seemed to be rather peeved on seeing the Danish prime minister take the picture. But photos can lie. In reality, just a few seconds earlier the first lady was herself joking with those around her, Cameron and Schmidt included. Her stern look was captured by chance.

I took these photos totally spontaneously, without thinking about what impact they might have. At the time, I thought the world leaders were simply acting like human beings, like me and you. I doubt anyone could have remained totally stony faced for the duration of the ceremony, while tens of thousands of people were celebrating in the stadium. For me, the behaviour of these leaders in snapping a selfie seems perfectly natural. I see nothing to complain about, and probably would have done the same in their place. The AFP team worked hard to display the reaction that South African people had for the passing of someone they consider as a father. We moved about 500 pictures, trying to portray their true feelings, and this seemingly trivial image seems to have eclipsed much of this collective work. [...]

I confess too that it makes me a little sad we are so obsessed with day-to-day trivialities, instead of things of true importance.

I was especially disappointed to see my hero Charlie Pierce jump onto the scolder bandwagon.

@ESQPolitics Et tu? There's a few more out there that aren't getting RTed much. Like this. pic.twitter.com/nJuu6QpAGd
— Libby Spencer (@libbyspencer) December 10, 2013

Truth is there were many world leaders enjoying themselves at the service. Including this guy:

Such an eloquent look on Bishop Tutu's face: "Jeez, they'll let ANYBODY into these things." pic.twitter.com/QEcRVrfWCC
— billmon (@billmon1) December 10, 2013

This is why, as much as I support freedom of the press, I can't get too exercised over the WH Media's alleged lack of access to every waking moment of Obama's day. They're not really giving us some great hidden truth from behind the scenes. It's all about finding the clickbait to invent outrage and drive traffic. Just not seeing what civil society gets out of that.

GOP hypocrites hate handshakes

President Obama had the audacity to shake the hand of a world leader at Mandela's funeral. Before the internet was invented, we used to call this good manners. Some might even have called it responsible statesmanship. But the world leader in question was Raul Castro standing in for his brother Fidel. So of course GOPers immediately launched themselves onto the fainting couches, demanding smelling salts.

Maybe somebody gave them bath salts instead, because this reaction from Senator Grumpy Gramps was batshit crazy.

When asked if Obama should have extended his hand, McCain was quick to respond.

"Of course not," the senator said. "Why should you shake hands with somebody who's keeping Americans in prison? I mean, what's the point?"

Then, after a slight pause, McCain went there.

"Neville Chamberlain shook hands with Hitler," he added.

I'll spare you the endless photos of GOP illuminaries shaking hands with every genocidal tyrant our government propped up over the years when it was convenient to keep them in office and simply post this obvious answer to McCain's ravings.

Late evening with Col. Qadhafi at his "ranch" in Libya - interesting meeting with an interesting man.
— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) August 15, 2009

Meanwhile, Marco Rubio complains:

"If he was going to shake his hand, he should have asked him about those basic freedoms Mandela was associated with that are denied in Cuba," Rubio told ABC News.

Sure, if only Obama had immediately scolded Castro, all Cubans would be enjoying freedom right now. Hell, maybe all the world leaders there could have engaged in a huge argument upon arriving at a funeral because, what better way to show respect for the occasion?

In any event, perhaps Rubio could have watched the damn speech before he shot his mouth off. Not like Obama let anybody off the hook.



Yes I know our own record of supporting domestic dissent isn't exactly stellar but we're still better than most places and it was important speech in support of human rights. Not that the corporate media is much interested in talking about that. Too busy reporting every anguished blathering coming from the GOpers and other assorted cons.

Pass on the Popcorn

The whole Presidential pardoning of the turkey tradition usually generates some comical photos. This one feels more cosmic. Reminds me of when they were calling Obama the Light Giver back in 2008. [White House photo]



[video here]

Secret wedding at the White House

Well, not exactly a secret but somehow they pulled it off without a media circus in attendance. White House photographer Pete Souza got married in the Rose Garden last night. I might not have mentioned it but I found this bit about his bride fascinating.

In a story from January of this year in USA Today, Lease is described as a "close friend" of Souza who gifted President Obama a Petoskey stone for his 50th birthday in 2011.

I had to look up Petoskey stone. It's a very cool bit of fossilized coral, possibly 350 million years old. Obama keeps it on his desk. I would too.

No deal

I hope this is true. The Hill is reporting Obama rejected the GOP's lame offer:

President Obama signaled Saturday that he wouldn't accept the Republicans' offer for a short-term increase in the nation's debt limit.

"Manufacturing crises to extract massive concessions isn’t how our democracy works, and we have to stop it," Obama said. "Politics is a battle of ideas, but you advance those ideas through elections and legislation – not extortion."

Hell, I could have written that statement myself. Meanwhile, the twitter tells me House GOPers are scrambling to pass the buck to the Senate so they can blame them for the failure of the Tea Party tantrums to produce any sweets for the angry base. [image via]

Stating the obvious

Is there really anyone who didn't know this? Anonymous senior GOP source admits they need Democratic help to escape their own snares in the shutdown insanity. Not at all clear they understand yet how little leverage they have but this is a start.

This source believes that at the end of the day, enough people in the GOP caucus could be OK with this because the economic implication of breaching the debt limit "scares people." This source also acknowledged that under this scenario, House GOP leaders may have to agree to pass a debt ceiling bill without all Republicans on board, and with Democratic support.

Meanwhile, Dana dutifully transcribes their phony talking point.

But multiple GOP sources tell CNN it is hard to nail down a path forward because there are still no direct conversations going on, and the White House will not talk.

What Dana fails to mention, (and how hard would it be to add this one sentence of context), the White House is reaching out to the GOP.

The White House had invited the full Republican caucus to participate in a meeting with the president, but the Speaker opted to send a smaller delegation, including leadership members and committee chairmen, a Boehner aide said earlier Wednesday.

So either these Republicans are too stupid to realize they were all invited to air their grievances directly to the President or they're deliberately lying. Either way they're not fit to hold their office.

Obama takes to the bully pulpit

This is the president we've been waiting for since 2008. At his presser today, President Obama called out the crazy cons in the Crackpot Caucus. No more catering or cratering to the vandals in the GOP House of Dysfunction. John Boehner is going to have to deal with his own damn crazies or take the blame.

Read the transcript or watch the vid at the link. It was mostly a thing of beauty. The only weak point was when Obama indicated a willingness to accept a short term agreement. To which I say -- no mas. This time it's got to be all or nothing. There's no other way to shut down the Tea Party tantrums. Agreeing to anything will only encourage them to try it again. In fact, as Charlie Pierce wisely counseled yesterday, Dems should up the ante:

For all the talk about how Republican extremism is finally catching up with the party, one can argue just as well that Wall Street-friendly, deficit-hawk, DLC-onomics is finally catching up with the Democratic party. There is no reason in the world now for the Democrats not to trot out a wish-list as long and as detailed as the one the Republicans burped up last week. Every last cut in the sequester agreement should be debated in the Democratic Senate. Medicare For All should get another run around the track. Major stimulative infrastructure programs should be designed. Hell, they should dig up John Maynard Keynes and sit him in the well of the Senate. If the denizens of the monkeyhouse want to gimmick things up with "continuing resolutions" funding those parts of the government that a) poll well, and b) make them look as though they give a rat's ass about poor people -- Tea Party congressmen defending the WIC program? Pull the other one. -- then the Democrats, many of whom actually care about this stuff, should give them a double dose of it in return.

I wish they would. If the GOPers want to redefine "negotiation" as no compromises allowed, then I don't see a down side to making equally extreme counter demands for stuff that would actually benefit the people. Let the GOPers fight against that. What better way to finally draw the bright line between the two party's platforms?

This time he really means it

Or at least I hope Obama does:

President Obama phoned Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Friday to tell him he will not negotiate with Republicans on the debt ceiling, according to a readout provided by the Speaker’s office.

Boehner told the president he was “disappointed” to hear his position, an aide said.

“Given the long history of using debt limit increases to achieve bipartisan deficit reduction and economic reforms, the Speaker was disappointed but told the president that the two chambers of Congress will chart the path ahead. It was a brief call,” the aide said.

Long history? As in since 2008? Time for Obama to make good on his threats. He's saved Boehner's sorry ass for five years. No more negotiating with the GOP's economic terrorists. No other way to break the fever except icing their strategy. If the Republicans shoot the hostage -- well -- we'll all bleed but at least it will be fast. Better than slowly suffocating by obstruction.

Seriously. Thanks Obama

Busy with real life stuff so outsourcing all my posts today. Betty Cracker finds a bucket full of good news:

1. Colorado, Washington get OK from feds on marijuana

2. Federal Tax System Will Recognize Married Gay Couples Even If Their States Do Not

3. HHS Extends Medicare Benefits To Married Gay Couples

Plus the executive order on guns. Not a bad day’s work. Thanks, Obama!

The gun order closes a loophole that allowed convicted felons to subvert background checks by taking possession of firearms through a corporation and shut down the reimportation of military weapons from abroad. Click over for the supporting posts.

Blaming Obama

This takes Obama Derangement Syndrome to a new level.

The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling, provided exclusively to TPM, showed an eye-popping divide among Republicans in the Bayou State when it comes to accountability for the government's post-Katrina blunders.

Twenty-eight percent said they think former President George W. Bush, who was in office at the time, was more responsible for the poor federal response while 29 percent said Obama, who was still a freshman U.S. Senator when the storm battered the Gulf Coast in 2005, was more responsible. Nearly half of Louisiana Republicans — 44 percent — said they aren't sure who to blame.

To be clear, the question specifically asked, "Who do you think was more responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina: George W. Bush or Barack Obama?"

In other words 73% of Louisiana Republicans don't remember who was president when Katrina hit NOLA. And people wonder why we can't have an informed debate on anything in this country anymore?

Personal trivia

My friend and former employer gets invited to the occasional White House function but this encounter on the Vineyard happened by chance. Tom has spent every August there for many years.



Boston Globe tells me:

One diner who kept his distance was Northampton attorney and Obama fund-raiser Tom Lesser, who happened to be at the restaurant with his wife, Maggie Spiegel, and their daughters Grace and Elisabeth. Obama stopped to say hello and, before leaving, took a quick selfie with the girls. Patrons applauded as the president and first lady departed.

I watched those girls grow up. I still have a note from Gracie that she left for me when she was about five years old. They're both gorgeous young women with fabulous careers now. [photo credit Martha's Vineyard Gazette]

Grimm assessments

New York Congressman Michael Grimm is appalled Obama would use his executive power to do nice things for the peoples because, founding fathers never intended that to happen.

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) said recent executive actions by President Obama, including a plan to extend high-speed Internet connections to virtually every school in the nation, demonstrate a "blatant" attempt to subvert the will of the American people.

"It's just a flagrant, you know, arrogant disregard not just for the current Congress," Grimm said in an interview with Fox News. "Look, it's not about me personally. That's not what this is about. You think about who is the Congress? It really — it is the voice of the people."

Or, if you're a Republican Congressman in John Boehner's House of Dysfunction, you're the voice of a handful of crackpots, but hey -- they're loud . But what's more interesting is new evidence of the GOP's emerging plan to blame their planned government shutdown on Obama.

"I really do believe because of political reasons, it's more advantageous for the president to keep us divided so that he can make these end runs and use these administrators and the people he puts in charge to just go around the Congress to do an agenda that he knows ultimately the people are not going to support," Grimm said.

Greg Sargent flagged the first inklings of the GOP's bizarre strategy last week and the GOPers are staying on message. They're floating this theme among the pary faithful while they're home in their districts. Last week in Virginia:

U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.-10th), speaking in Loudoun County today, said he believes President Barack Obama wants a federal government shutdown in the fall.

If the government shuts down, Obama, a Democrat, will use the closure to score political points against Republicans and "stick it to them," [U.S. Rep. Frank] Wolf said. “I believe the president wants us to shut it down … I think he'll literally come at us,” Wolf, a 30-year incumbent, said.

And I believe Frank Wolf is "literally" either a flagrant liar or a raging lunatic who shouldn't be allowed within 50 miles of Capitol Hill. But the point is the GOP felt it necessary to come up with a ploy to shift the blame for a government shutdown using the defense: Obama made us do it. Finding that simultaneously hilarious, pathetic and terrifying.

Send in the creepy clowns

I usually ignore these sort of lame-ass stupid crackpot shots at Obama but this show of disrespect to our POTUS at a Missouri rodeo wasn't just an obscure and brief reference in some movie. This was a sustained charade at a family event with lots of children in attendance.

"The announcer wanted to know if anyone would like to see Obama run down by a bull," the posting said. "The crowd went wild. He asked it again and again, louder each time, whipping the audience into a lather."

Another clown then apparently joined the performance.

"One of the clowns ran up and started bobbling the lips on the mask and the people went crazy," the posting said. "Finally a bull came close enough to him that he had to move so he jumped up and ran away to the delight of the onlookers hooting and hollering from the stands."

Real lesson for the kids in civil discourse and tempered political disagreement there. Of course it's nothing new and not really worth making a huge deal over it. The main reason I'm mentioning it at all is because nobody has asked, "WTF is that broomstick in the photo all about?"

What the left could love about the NSA Presser

Time was when President Obama's forceful style at today's presser would have had "teh left" exploding with approval on the social nets. Those days are over. Opening with the appointment of a blue ribbon commission to study the NSA didn't thrill the spectators. We've seen that movie many times before and it rarely has a satisfactory ending.

That's not to say there wasn't a couple of (largely ignored) satisfying moments hidden in the Q & A. The two standout quotes for me came first in answer to Major Garrett's question on appointing a new head for the Federal Reserve. Obama answered in part:

But the other mandate is full employment. And right now, if you look at the biggest challenges we have, the challenge is not inflation; the challenge is we’ve still got too many people out of work, too many long-term unemployed, too much slack in the economy, and we’re not growing as fast as we should. And so I want a Fed chairman who’s able to look at those issues and have a perspective that keeps an eye on inflation, makes sure that we’re not seeing artificial bubbles in place, but also recognizing, you know what, a big part of my job right now is to make sure the economy is growing quickly and robustly, and is sustained and durable, so that people who work hard in this country are able to find a job.

Seem to remember many calls for exactly this statement from the bully pulpit. Saw the sum total of one tweet from someone else having noticed it. Neither have I seen any recognition for the strength of Obama's defense of the ACA outside of one tweet afterward from Ed Henry, who asked the question.

[Obama]: Now, what’s true, Ed, is, is that in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the Speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law -- it has to do with, for example, are we able to simplify the attestation of employers as to whether they’re already providing health insurance or not -- it looks like there may be some better ways to do this; let's make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. [...]

Now, I think the really interesting question is why it is that my friends in the other party have made the idea of preventing these people from getting health care their holy grail, their number-one priority. The one unifying principle in the Republican Party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people don't have health care and, presumably, repealing all those benefits I just mentioned...

And let me just make one last point about this. The idea that you would shut down the government unless you prevent 30 million people from getting health care is a bad idea. What you should be thinking about is how can we advance and improve ways for middle-class families to have some security so that if they work hard, they can get ahead and their kids can get ahead.

Read the transcript for the full remarks. Our POTUS delivered as brilliant a defense of Obamacare as is possible for a black President leading during the biggest resurgence of institutional racism since the days of Jim Crow. That deserves more notice than it's likely to get.

Obama fights back at last

It's about damn time our President accepted his political opponents are irredeemable crackpots who care only about their own political power and dropped the nice guy routine. You can't meet people halfway when their definition of compromise is they get everything they want and you get to take all the blame for their inhumane agenda. But it is interesting to see how our "liberal" media plays the change. David Graham at The Atlantic lays it out under the headline, Forget the Charm, Keep the Offensive: Obama's Aggressive New Strategy.

Get that? Republicans can say any damn offensive thing they please, vandalize our system of government, advance the most obvious lies about the President's policy proposals, sabotage our economy, deliberately ignore the most pressing problems facing the nation and relentlessly attempt to destroy every vestige of humane government policy while wasting millions of our money on their political chicanery and the media merely transcribes it without any colorful adjectives that might even faintly suggest they're destroying America as we know it. But now that the President has finally decided to fight them on their own damn terms, he's aggressive. On the offensive. You can almost hear the word uppity just dying to get out.

But leaving the media's long entrenched GOPcentric mindset aside, I for one welcome the newly combative Obama. He's the President dammit. He was elected by a landslide by present day standards and this is what people stood in eight hour long lines for. A real fight. Republicans are out of control. They need to called out. Let them whine. It only exposes their weakness and their perfidy.

[Big thanks to Michael J.W. Stickings of The Reaction (Twitter: @mjwstickings) for kindly linking in.]

Obamacare, it's lowering costs

There was some article going around a week or so ago where one of the big health insurers was claiming rates would rise by something like 384% because of Obamacare. Which unsurprisingly turns out to be pure bullcrap. The news out of California, our biggest state with some 7.1 million uninsured residents, is rates are going to be significantly lower than even neutral observers had predicted.

I couldn't access the original New Republic piece. Apparently you need to be a subscriber now to read it, but Ed Kilgore has a good summary:

Based on the premiums that insurers have submitted for final regulatory approval, the majority of Californians buying coverage on the state’s new insurance exchange will be paying less—in many cases, far less—than they would pay for equivalent coverage today. And while a minority will still end up writing bigger premium checks than they do now, even they won’t be paying outrageous amounts. Meanwhile, all of these consumers will have access to the kind of comprehensive benefits that are frequently unavailable today, at any price, because of the way insurers try to avoid the old and the sick.

Ed has the numbers and a policy that was expected to cost $450 a month will actually be $300 and that's before the government subsidies kick in. For healthy 20 years old, the subsidies will completely cover a bare bones policy and a single individual making under $45k a year, estimated to be about 12% of the population, will get generous subsidies as well finally making health care affordable for just about everybody. And this is even with major insurers opting out of the exchanges.

And it's not just in California. Obamacare is lowering rates in other states too because, competition.

We've see this happen in other states. Earlier this month, rate proposals released by insurance companies in Washington state showed some people's premiums would actually go down. Premera Blue Cross had estimated that premiums would rise about 50 percent to 70 percent. When Oregon released proposed health care premiums online in May, two insurers requested the chance to adjust their rates — to make them lower. Why is this happening? "The premiums and participation in California, Oregon, Washington and other states show that insurers want to compete for the new enrollees in this market," the Kaiser Family Foundation's Gary Claxton told The New Republic. The glories of the free market.

This is why the GOPers keep trying to repeal it. Their greatest fear is it will succeed and prove the reformers, and Obama, were right.

Don't want to go to war no more

Second day analysis is coming in on Obama's foreign policy speech and this NYT editorial sees what Obama did there:

President Obama’s speech on Thursday was the most important statement on counterterrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9/11 America. For the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future.

Our POTUS effectively declared the war on terror over. No more axis of evil. No more existential threat to justify deploying combat assets to fight a ground war that doesn't have a home ground. Obama is calling for a return to law enforcement and intelligence gathering for such preventative measures as are possible in fighting small cell groups and radicalized individuals.

Unsurprisingly, Charlie Pierce has the most astute analysis of Obama's speech. Definitely read it all but here's the punchline:

The process of making the presidency an office with far more power in foreign affairs than the Founders intended took decades. The process of putting a sharp edge on that office took less than one. Give this president some credit. At least he knows what a deadly weapon his office is.

Yes, Obama's speech was only words but I believe this counts as the use of the bully pulpit his critics so often claim he refuses to use. He's calling for an end to the forever war. He's asking America to calm down and restore some of those freedoms we gave up for supposed security. He's asking to have some of the executive war powers rescinded. But he can't make his rhetoric come to fruition alone. Congress needs to do its part, so maybe targeting them for some criticism would help acheive the goals Obama laid out. It's worth a try.

Obama redefines the war on terror

President Obama gave a foreign policy speech this afternoon. Do yourself a favor. Read the whole speech before you read any of the instant punditry and take it as gospel. If you're out of free reads at the NYT, Booman has it and he also has one of the more temperate takes on it.

It was a huge and complex speech. A speech that takes some time to process fully. Maybe it was just too complicated in a world that now operates mostly in 140 character quips and expects on demand gratification. The initial wave of analysis I've seen was rife with cherry picked points that offer a ride on favored hobby horses.

Predictably, drones emerged as the first complaint. Obama didn't disown their use. He was honest in his assessment of their necessity. He didn't make false promises that they won't be used again. What was mostly ignored is that he acknowledged they were problematic and pledged to work towards making their use more transparent and accountable. What also won't be mentioned much is the appropriate Congressional committees were informed before every strike. And I suppose I'll lose whatever liberal cred I have left when I say, I agree with Obama. Given the choices, none of which are good, drones are still a better choice than any other option. I don't want our country to be killing people. But I honestly think, Obama doesn't either and he's making the best choices he can under the circumstances. He's not wrong when he says it's the best way to minimize civilian deaths.

I've seen him accused of passing the buck to Congress. Not sure how that works, when Congress is the body that has the responsibility for setting the parameters. Obama tried to close Gitmo practically on the first day he took office. Congress wasted no time in making it illegal to do so. Never understood what executive action progressives think he should have taken to override Congress. Funny, I thought we hated executive overreach. Don't see how he could do much more than say this.

"There is no justification beyond politics for Congress to prevent us from closing a facility that should never have been opened."

Obama also addressed everything from surveillance on the media to prosecuting leakers to the incremental destruction of our civil rights under the aegis of national security. Much of it was more aspirational than operational. Given the political reality, don't see how he could do much more. But the most important part of the speech was clear and bold. He promised to work to rescind the AUMF. He won't sign another extension. No other president will be able to wage an undeclared war under that ill-advised leftover legacy of the Bush administration.

That's big. He deserves some praise for that, dammit. I'm thinking historians will be kinder to Obama in the future than the media and the internets are to him in the present.

President Obama, cool, calm, collected

Some insights from former speechwriter Jon Favreau, on how President Obama deals with media driven scandals. Worth a read in full, but here's the standout grafs:

In the case of the AP phone records, Obama the former constitutional-law professor cares deeply about the balance between freedom and security. This is the president who began the foreign-policy section of his inaugural with the words “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” And he wants Congress to debate and finally pass a media-shield law. But can you imagine if the president of the United States had quashed a court-ordered subpoena in an independent investigation he wasn’t even supposed to know about? A subpoena aimed at finding the person in his own administration who leaked classified information that may have jeopardized American lives? Talk about a political scandal. [...]

That is who he is. The handwringers and bed wetters in the D.C. punditocracy should know that Barack Obama will never be on their timeline. He does not value being first over being right. He will not spend his presidency chasing news cycles. He will not shake up his White House staff just because of some offhand advice offered to Politico by a longtime Washingtonian or a nameless Democrat who’s desperately trying to stay relevant. And if that means Dana Milbank thinks he’s too passive; if it means that Jim VandeHei will keep calling him arrogant and petulant; if it means that Chris Matthews will whine about him not enjoying the presidency, then so be it. He’ll live.

We could use some of that "not valuing being first over being right" ethic in our punditocracy right now. In fact we could use a metric ton of it. Not that we will get it as long as the big money is in chasing news cycles and creating outrage.