Now that we finally have a competent reality-based person and political party back in charge of the country, can we do the thing that the American people have been wanting for the past 7 years? Can we finally go about catching the mastermind of the worst attack on American soil in history?

If there is any one thing that I think could unify the nation around the Obama presidency and firmly cement him into U.S. history as a roaring success, it would be capturing Osama Bin Laden and bringing him to face justice in a U.S. court. 

I am confident that by bringing back competent intelligence officials like Richard Clarke -- who are realistic and serious about catching the guy -- back in charge of counter-terrorism agencies and re-forging alliances with nations around the world, we can track "America's Most Wanted" down and finally heal a gaping wound that still festers within the American psyche.

From Ben Smith at Politico:

"I have said before and I will repeat again: People's families are off limits," Obama said. "And people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18 and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn’t be a topic of our politics."

On charges that his campaign has stoked the story via liberal blogs:

"I am offended by that statement. There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us," he said. "Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I thought there was somebody in my campaign who was involved in something like that, they would be fired."

There you have it.  Obama has officially put out the call to take the high road.  Will it stop the rumormill and blogosphere voyeur-vetting? 

No.

But he has done what he should have done and officially acknowledge, denounced and distanced himself from the issue.

I know there is fear that Biden is going to have a hard time "tearing into" Palin, because of the perception that he is being "mean" to her.

 I can see where that can be a concern, since Hillary saw a big bounce after it was perceived that she was being ganged up on during the Primaries. 

But, like its been said many times before, "politics is not beanbag".  Palin might be able to get a sympathy bounce when she gets massacred by Biden in the debates, but its only temporary.  This is a serious election with dire circumstances and conservatives more than anyone understand the importance of experience and toughness.  The "sex card" might work for liberals simply because of the nature of liberalism, but I don't think its going to stick with many working class voters with their jobs, health, and their very lives at stake.

Also, do not forget that the Dems have Hillary Clinton and her 18 million votes as a effective counter-balance against the "sex card". 

Hillary will run a bus over her. 

Twice.

I think Scott McClellan, being who he is and his long-standing relationship with George Bush, in writing this book is essentially "breaking the ice" on this frozen sea of an Administration. In other words, he is the first domino in what could be a "domino-effect" of others within the Bush administration to come out with their own "tell-all" books. 

He of course gets the big pay-day for being the first "insider" whistleblower, but with it also comes all the withering attack of arrows and mud that will come flinging in his direction.  But seeing as how he was a press secretary for the highest office in the land in one of the most deceptive and manipulative Administrations in history, I am sure he is training will allow to spin his side effectively -- making him an ideal frontline attacker. 

McClellan essentially gives cover for all the other insiders itching to get their stories out to the public and will make it a much less dangerous proposition so with that in mind, who do you think is next?

I think Colin Powell is the obvious candidate, because of the precipitous fall of his stock since the war. But how about something out of left-field like Condi Rice?  She looks like she might be someone who gets troubled by demons. 

Any other guesses?

Hillary Clinton might very well ruined her Presidential Campaign in 2008 and quite possibly any campaign in the future because of her RFK comment a la Mike Dukakis, Howard Dean, John Kerry et al.  She has no doubt lost a good deal of clout and standing in part because of this gaffe, but also because of a lot of ill will built up throughout her campaign.  This could very well be the low point of her personal political career --

Which is why Obama should offer her the V.P. spot NOW.

I can't take credit for this idea.  In a fit of genius, Jonze wrote this in the comments section of the Assassin's Gate post:

In a crazy way I think this could actually increase the chance that Hillary would be on his ticket simply because it would be seen as 100% his choice now. Before this incident it would always be seen that he was forced into having her as his VP one way or the other meaning he couldn't possibly choose her without the prevailing belief being he bowed to pressure. However now he has the out if he didn't want her and nobody could really object, so if she did end up on his ticket it would be seen as his choice and not any weakness.

I agree with this sentiment.  I also find that in history sometimes the greatest of rivals turn out to be the greatest of friends:  You always expect your friends to help you. But if in a time of great need a former enemy comes to your aid, the impact is all the much greater and the bond that forms is all the more stronger.  Jonze is right that Hillary is now in a very weak position.  Reading this NYTimes blog post account of the entire incident, you can tell that Hillary realizes that she really screwed up big time.  You can can see it in her face and hear it in her voice and in the desperation and dejection of even her most rabid supporters. Its palpable:  This is Hillary's "Macaca Moment".    She is no longer in a position to dictate much of anything nevermind her place on a presidential ticket.  She is emotionally and politically exhausted.

The entire MSM is piling on her.  Everyone is basically pronouncing her Vice Presidential aspirations dead in the water.  Her stock is at an all-time low, and everyone is bearish on her and selling -- which is why this is the moment Obama should be buying.  Hillary's best chance of redemption is getting the V.P. spot and Obama has a chance to pick up a valuable ally at an extremely inexpensive "price".

"Nobody expects the Inquisition!" 

...and nobody will be expecting Obama to  offer her the Unity Ticket.  It will be shocking, dramatic and it will create the perfect "Hollywood ending" to the climax and denouement of this totally "made-for-Hollywood" Democratic Primary. The media and country will drink it up like milkshake.  I know I certainly would be moved by such a magnanimous act of reconciliation.  I can even picture the VP announcement "scene" at the convention with the inspirational music (like Jerry Goldsmith's score from the movie "Rudy") and confetti and the eruption of cheers from crowd as Obama and Hillary stand side-by-side waving to amidst the flashes of the camera bulbs.   They will make movies and write stories about this Democratic primary for years to come.

Its almost too perfect an ending as to seem scripted.  And you know the Republican conspiracy theorists will build a whole cottage industry around this if it does happen.  But it creates an amazing narrative that could inspire the entire country if not the world.

I just wanted to kick around the idea that McCain might choose a woman to run as his VP if Obama ends up not picking Hillary Clinton or another female VP.

It would probably be the politically shrewd move to make.  I am not implying that all female voters vote as a block based on gender, but lets face it, there are some women Democrats out there who have been disillusioned by the primaries and might just just cross-over if given a carrot like the first female Veep.

In addition, if McCain does manage to get elected with a women as VP, the GOP might just have a winning advantage in the 2012 election since the frontrunner for the Dem's at this point in time would be Hillary Clinton, and an incumbent VP would not only take the the "gender" issue from Clinton, she would also trump Clinton's "experience" and "ready on day one" since a sitting V.P. would have more executive credentials than a Senator would. 

What does everyone else think?

I just noticed a great ad by progressivemediausa.org on DailyKos highlighting a photograph of Bush and McCain eating a cake while Hurricane Katrina was hitting New Orleans.  It also details some of the votes McCain cast in the Senate concerning the Katrina Disaster.

McCain: Let Them Eat Cake Video

Powerful.

Here is an interesting question for ABC: Why is George Stephanopoulos a moderator when he was a senior political advisor in the 1992 Clinton Campaign and then Clinton's communications director in the White House.

Not that he seems particularly partisan in this debate, but you'd think ABC would consider something like that when they make decisions about the moderators.

Taken from the Political Wire's Historical Quote of the Day:

"If [Republicans] could cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, education,
and the environment, middle-class Americans would see fewer benefits
from their tax dollars, feel more resentful paying taxes, and become
even more receptive to their appeals for tax cuts and their strategy of
waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion,
gay rights, and guns."

-- Bill Clinton, in his 2004 memoirs, My Life, making the same argument as Sen. Barack Obama.

The wording is a little different but the sentiment is exactly the same.  Bill calls the middle-class taxpayer "resentful" instead of "bitter" and says they are "receptive" to Guns-and-God as opposed to "cling to".
So when is Hillary gonna come out and call Bill "out of touch" with the middle class voter?

This story has been getting some play at DailyKos here and here. Glenn Greenwald has also blogged extensively about it at Salon.com.

Keith Olbermann also picked up on this and featured it prominently on Countdown with Rachel Maddow here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh98duokAco&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/2/04611/36358/501/488678

Attorney General Mukasey, at a speech to a public affairs forum at the Commonwealth Club said in an appeal for warrantless wiretapping:

Officials "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

After which he got teary-eyed and choked up and while struggling to maintain his composure followed up with:

"We got three thousand. . . . We've got three thousand people who went to work that day and didn't come home to show for that"

As Glenn and Rachel note, even before 9/11 FISA allowed for warrantless wiretapping of calls coming from outside the U.S. into the country. The very idea that the Bush administration knew about but was unable to tap a call from Al Qaeda because their hands were tied by FISA is, as Rachel Maddow exclaims: "bull puck".

If what Mukasey says is true, then this could very well be gross negligence and criminal malfeasance on the part of the Bush Admin. Otherwise, if he is lying, he is obstensibly completely fabricated a 9/11 event in order to fear-monger the country into supporting Bush's FISA Bill agenda.

As Glenn Greenwald notes, the 9/11 Commission Report makes completely no mention of this story and he actually followed-up by actually trying to contact members of the 9/11 Commission.  9/11 Commission Executive Director, Philip Zelikow unsurprisingly has no idea what Mukasey is talking about:

"Not sure of course what the AG had in mind, although the most important signals intelligence leads related to our report -- that related to the Hazmi-Mihdhar issues of January 2000 or to al Qaeda activities or transits connected to Iran -- was not of this character. If, as he says, the USG didn't know where the call went in the US, neither did we."

If you watch that Olbermann video, you can see that both he and Rachel Maddow are astounded by this whole event.  The implications if what Mukasey says is true are unfathomable.  I doubt the Bush administration would want to try and defend what Mukasey said, so I would assume that they will claim that Mukasey "misspoke" or was speaking figuratively in a particularly emotional moment.  But at the very least the press should be questioning the validity and ramifications of this statement and echoing Olbermann's sentiment that Mukasey should be dragged in front of Congress and forced to testify about this under oath.   If the Bush Administration is brazen and unscrupulous enough to use this line of fear-mongering to push telecom immunity then let them feel the edge of the double-edged sword.  At the very least, the Democratic Party should be able to make some serious political hay from this in their battle against the FISA Bill and the General Election.

Although I am not surprised the MSM has I am curious as to why TPM hasn't pursued this potentially explosive story yet.  I was completely floored by this when I saw it.  Time has dulled the pain of 9/11, and perhaps this allows for small nuggets of the truth about the event to leak out inadvertently.  But that statement and the implications it holds rips that wound back open viscerally. That the press and the Dem Party might let this drift downstream and out of the public discourse would be just as grossly negligent and outrageous as the statement itself. 

I listened to Obama' s Speech on Race today and as an Asian-American I was floored by it. It was both raw and down to earth and at the same time uplifting and visionary.  Barack is in a unique position in that he is both Black and White and raised overseas.  A combination that I think probably afforded him benefits, disadvantages and experiences similar to us Asians who are difficult to peg and fairly under-represented in this country.

But here is the most important aspect: His background widens his perspective.  It bestows him with a unique sense of empathy and allows him to understand the viewpoints of people of many different backgrounds. It allows Barack to see the world not by what makes us different but rather what makes us similar.   Although Obama didn't address any issues specific to Asian-Americans, I felt as if he touched on many bases that are also important to us and that when push comes to shove, he would not make biased on race, culture or religion.   Even if all Obama has to offer is rhetoric, then that in itself has immense value.  It breaks down walls and opens up channels of discussion that allows us to exchange our personal experiences.

A truly monumental speech today.  I feel doubly -- nay triple-y inspired that if he does get into the White House that maybe our country will finally take the huge strides necessary to both heal racial tensions and achieve economic equality.  And that maybe, there will finally be someone in government who will understand what its like for a peculiar little Asian non-Christian like me to grow up American.

Sorry for the sensational title, but I suppose it caught your attention, no?

Very few people go "congregation hopping" in their lifetime.  The fact of the matter is, the congregation you join in your youth usually becomes a part of your identity.  Everyone you know goes to that congregation.  Friends, family, co-workers you see every week or maybe every day for 20 years.   It becomes a part of your extended family.  

Unless there is something fundamentally wrong with the principles the congregation or community is founded upon,  I believe its actually MORE ETHICAL to stay and change things from within that community when you notice something you disagree with.  Just picking up and leaving your community and the people within it is not only cowardly, it is also irresponsible.  

In a lot of ways, I think I probably feel the same way about the U.S. as Obama feels about his church.  I was born and raised in the U.S.  There were some things I disliked about growing up here as someone with yellow skin and slanty eyes, but there are so many more things I love about growing up here.  Its a part of my identity. Its a part of my being -- I am an American.   I am appalled of my country's illegal invasion and torturing of Iraqis and its racial stereotyping of Muslims and brown-skinned people.  I am also quite thoroughly disgusted by my current government and the people some of the people who represent it.
 
Anytime I wanted to I could just "quit" America and move to Japan without a visa and live just as easy a life. Yet despite that fact, I choose to stay here and change our current situation from within.  Everyone I love lives here, everything I have ever known exists on these lands.  I choose to fight to change my community rather than run away from it.  Do I agree with everything that my country does or says?  No.  But I love it for what its founded upon and the spirit of what it represents.  It is who I am.

I must say, this whole Geraldine Ferraro ordeal is actually making Obama's hasty disposal of Samantha Powers after her "monster" comment look like a fantastic bit of leadership and good judgement.

I know a lot of Obama supporters, myself included, who sort of lamented that Barack was wussing out and folding by not fighting to keep Powers on the staff, but it now seems like it was the perfect  segue to the Geraldine Ferraro debacle and Clinton's slow-footedness in dealing with her.   It provides a contrast of Obama's decisiveness expediency that gives off an image of leadership versus an indecisivene waffling that gives an image of lack of control and message. 

So I eat crow and congratulate Obama on making a gutsy move that turned out to be the right one with Samantha Powers.

I feel that the recent comments made by Ferraro falls right in line with the classic Rovian strategy of attacking a candidate's strength and turning it into a weakness.   The most famous example of this was the the "Swiftboating" of John Kerry, by taking Kerry's greatest strength: his military service and his Purple Heart and creating a cloud of doubt and suspicion around it -- rendering it useless.

The same can be seen here with Ferraro's comments.  One of Obama's greatest strengths is the idea that he was able to overcome great hardship to get where he is despite being a Black man from a broken family.  But she has turned that on its head and made the claim that he is where he is thanks to the fact he is a Black man.

I can see the Republicans using this strategy to the fullest extent in every state, every opportunity they get.  I think Hillary is giving us an insight into how the Republican line will play out in the General Election if Obama wins the nomination.  Hillary will just hand the baton over to McCain.