Tim Russert was a tenacious journalist, a proud American, and by all accounts, a loving son, father, and husband.  Whatever issues you might have had with his work, its hard to deny the enduring impact he had on "Meet The Press." It is his vision for that show, and his commitment to preserving it as an American institution that will be his greatest legacy. 

Though I took issue with his journalistic style (and occasional ethical slipperiness), I admired his insistence that continuing a heated political discussion was more important than breaking for commercials, and I came to love his peculiar but endearing quirk of  pointing at the camera.  I also appreciated the sense of gravity and drama that he brought to Sunday morning shows. Even when I had no plans of watching his stable of guests  (Carville, Matlin, Murphy, and Shrum, again?), I like to tune in just to hear the theme play and Russert's baritone voice intone: "Our issues this Sunday..." 

Russert deserves to be lauded for maintaining the old-fashioned simplicity of "Meet The Press" (as opposed to the flashier segments and sets of its competitors), no small feat in the corporate-driven world of television news.  With few exceptions, Russert did not interview politicians in more relaxed settings and he did not like to edit his interviews.  Instead, he put them at a chair at his set (implicitly keeping the home-court advantage on the side of the press and not the pol) and grilled them for ten, twenty, thirty minutes at a time, often without a single break or an edit.  His round table segments suffered from staleness, as he largely resisted bringing in younger, fresher voices and instead stuck to his favorite insidery operatives and the op-ed scribes of the Post and the Times. 

But at least he resisted the impatient jumpiness of the other Sunday shows (Fox News Sunday and ABC's This Week, I'm looking in your direction), maintaining only one lighter segment, the flashback clip at the end of the show.  He was proud of MTP's status as the Sunday show of record, and his old school aesthetic (dowdy graphics, a spartan set, the reairing of grainy black-and-white footage) was part of his deep respect for the past.

But while I mourn the loss of the iconic figure, I fear that the death of Russert will only invigorate and enliven Russertism, the brand of journalism that imitates all of Russert's macho posturing and cheap tricks and yet fails to appreciate his greatest strengths.

The coming flood of encomia will cast him as Edwin R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite rolled into one--it's a safe bet that both those names will show up in his official NYT obit tomorrow.   And, to be sure, Russert's combative, needling style had its virtues.  But his rise to the top of the DC chattering class unfortunately spawned a crowd of imitators and contributed to the current obsession with theater and trivia that dominates American political journalism.

The moments for which Ezra Klein rightly lauds him are the moments that Russert resisted his usual impulses towards indulging in Beltway clubbiness and sniffing out meaningless gaffes and gotchas.  Or, in other words, Russert was best when he resisted Russertism.  Although, unlike Victor Frankenstein, he never seemed that troubled by the lurching monster he created and unleashed.

In any case, the man is gone, and the impact of this election will likely be great.  I do feel sorry that he will not be around to see the outcome of this election that so clearly excited him.  Rest in peace, Russ. Go Bills!

It's only Wednesday, and Barack Obama can already claim this week as one of his campaign's best ever--right up there with the victory in Iowa and the Potomac Primary drubbing.

The weekend was nice. Hillary Clinton gave a gracious and heartfelt endorsement on Saturday.  The Sunday morning pundits spent a fair amount of time piling on the now-infamous cottage-cheese-on-lime-jello June 3 speech by Senator McCain.

Monday brought mixed news.  The business pages were grim and solemn, charting the upwards spiral of gas prices and the downwards spiral of new job figures.  But that same day, the candidates announced their respective  themes that they hoped to hammer from now till November.

McCain's focus? Iraq.  Obama's?  The economy.

What a gleeful morning that must have been in the Obama communications office.  I imagine that the Chicago sunshine must have shone so brightly in that paper-strewn office, illuminating the cheek-to-cheek smiles on the faces of the underpaid, overworked staff.

No one takes delight in the nation's deeper slide into recession--far from it.  It's just that on that fine morning Obama had so clearly demonstrated the contrast between himself and McCain.  One candidate was sitting down at the national kitchen table, brimming with answers on how to stop the bleeding and bring the nation back to peak economic health.  The other man asked the American people to ignore their own personal concerns and join him in supporting his unpopular stand on an ambiguous, difficult violent conflict in a distant land.

Soon thereafter, McCain got caught openly lying to a national newsweekly about the contents of his June 3 speech, and just this morning, he went on the nation's most popular breakfast show and declared that the top public concern about the Iraq War--when and how many U.S. troops could head home--was hardly important. 

It's worth noting that these gaffes (along with his painful June 3 speech) were not just few slip-ups in front of local reporters that have to be filtered and pumped through the blogs; these were mainstage, primetime, full spotlight fuck-ups.  And on the economy and the troops, no less!  You'd think the Republican nominee would have enough sense to play off the favorable media narratives that claim the GOP is inherently fiscally responsible and inherently more sympathetic to our armed forces.  But nope, McCain is just leaving his milkshake unguarded, and Obama is more than willing to drink. it. up.

Any seasoned political veteran will tell you that it's bad to gloat over your opponent's missteps.  But this is a golden hour, this is the fleeting moment when many voters' perceptions are still soft and unformed  and the dominant general campaign narratives have yet to set and harden.

So I hope that Obama's office is busy with a set of talking points and catchphrases to slap on McCain every chance they get, calling him "out-of-touch," "tone-deaf," "uncaring," "pro-war," "dishonest," and so on.  Yes, these crude branding and labeling games are Orwellian and distasteful, but they're potent weapons, and McCain's never been shy about tarring and smearing his opponents with nasty signifiers.

This "week" of course, may not last.  Obama could acrobatically insert his own foot ankle-deep in his mouth by the end of today.  But, for the moment, now is the time for Obama to knock McCain off his balance, and rush in and seize the best ground for the long-term series of battles.  I do think Obama is quite mortal and flawed, and his campaign is far from perfect, but I think they are more aware than anyone of "the fierce urgency of now."

The veepstakes is a silly, time-wasting game for political junkies.  Which is, of course, why I love it.  But I do get tired of comments by folks who are positive that they know who it will be, or are adamant that their favorite choice must be picked.  I've also noticed that these folks also tend to pick some of the most implausible candidates for veep.

I'd like to propose a list of the no-way-in-hell candidates for the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee.  Comments and disagreements are most welcome.

1.  Al Gore:  I would wager my entire life savings and my first-born child that Gore will never again hold an elected office.  He's a sixty-year-old man who finally figured out what his calling is in life, and there's no way he'd want to throw that away just to be demoted to a thankless, tiring job that he already held for eight years just so that in eight years time he will get a shot at a more glamorous and powerful job that he actually already won and then was denied eight years ago.  Who wants to look forward and say that on his sixty-eighth birthday he will have once again accomplished what he already accomplished by his fifty-second birthday?   Who would want to live their life on such a repetitive loop?  I think Al Gore is a happier guy because he's let his presidential dreams die.  The electoral draw here also is minimal--he was unable to carry Tennessee at the top of the ticket and it's hard to see how choosing Gore is a nod to Clinton's supporters.  Minuses all around.

2.  John Edwards:  Why not? Because he's far less experienced in politics than Obama; he's only won a single election in his life.  In fact, he's spent far more time running for elected offices than he has ever spent holding an elected office.  Also, he failed in the Veep slot last time--he didn't bring a single new state into play, he did not click with the nominee, and he badly flubbed the debate with Cheney.  And, aside from a cadre of bloggers and a smattering of voters, most people just aren't that into him.  Each time he's sought votes from the American people, the American people have responded with a resounding "meh." Why would Obama pick a guy with a shorter resume and a demonstrated history of screwing the electoral pooch?

What's more, the haircut/McMansion/trial lawyer thing reinforces the "Obama is an elitist" attack.  I think the elitist tag is total bullsh*t for both Obama and Edwards, but if Obama wants to protect himself from that smear, tapping Edwards is not the right way to do that.

3.  Hillary Clinton.  Forget the electoral pros and cons.  You can make a fine case that Clinton helps the ticket and you can make a fine case that she hurts it.  I don't think that's a settled issue. 

But to understand why Obama will never pick her, you really need to take a big picture view of the structure of American presidential power.  Most of the president's power is legally granted by the Constitution, but a real and not insignificant part of the presidency is the informal deference and attention granted to the POTUS by the American media, members of Congress, their own political party, and the American people.  Call it "the bully pulpit," although it's much more than that.  

Now, behind the scenes, many presidents are somewhat generous with their constitutional powers, and allow their vice-presidents, chiefs of staff, and other top advisers share a fair amount of the executive decision-making.  The Bush-Cheney power-sharing agreement of course comes to mind, but Clinton-Gore, Nixon-Kissinger,  Roosevelt-Hull, and Wilson-House comes to mind.  Each of those relationships was fraught with internal tensions, but that’s another story for another time.

But NO president has ever allowed another member of the executive branch to share his bully pulpit.  And if Hillary Clinton held the office of the Vice-President, President Obama would have to deal with a rival pole of power within his own executive branch.

It doesn't matter if Clinton promises to be meek and obedient (and frankly, it's a stretch to imagine her either promising that or keeping that promise). The fact is, she's already has a substantial position in American political life, and by virtue of her own status and her husband's status as an ex-president, the press corps, party bigwigs, and members of Congress will grant her a level of authority that no vice-president has ever had before (with the possible exception of Jefferson under Adams, and the original structure of executive branch that put the president’s chief rival under  him was such a disaster that it led to a constitutional amendment).  

Obama has proven that he likes to run a tidy, disciplined ship.  Senator Clinton has proven that she never had full control of either her staff or her husband during the campaign.  Why would he want to invite his once-acrimonious rival aboard, along with her own army of drama-loving, leak-prone staffers and her vocal, attention-loving ex-president husband?

There's just no reason Obama would want to share his public platform with someone who has arguably greater stature and lots of public sway. Every time that she disagrees with Obama, she will be able to threaten the use of her own bully pulpit, either explicitly or implicitly.  Every time Obama makes a tough call, he'll have to compromise with Hillary Clinton, and even then, he’ll have to worry about placating her staffers and her husband.  That's no way to run a White House.

Clintons supports can carp and threaten all they like now.  I don't necessarily fault them or her for trying to get the Vice-Presidency; they put enormous effort into her campaign, and they sincerely believe she is a superior leader.  But I believe they're wrong to want it for all the reasons I laid out above.  If not picking Clinton turns out to cost Democrats the election, so be it.  Because an Obama-Clinton Administration would be a history-making political clusterf*ck on the grandest scale imaginable.

**Please disregard the previous very similar post under this name: I'm new to TPM blogging and the lack of any editing feature made for a sloppy post.  My apologies for the double post: lesson learned.**

The veepstakes is a silly, time-wasting game.  Which is, of cours, why I love it.  But I do get sick of comments by folks who are positive that they know who it will be, or are adamant that their favorite choice must be picked.  I've also noticed that these folks also tend to pick some of the most implausible and unlikely candidates for veep.

I'd like to propose a list of the no-way-in-hell candidates for the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee.  

1.  Al Gore:  If you need someone to explain why Gore is not a viable pick, you really don't know that much about politics and you really don't know that much about Al Gore.  I would wager my entire savings and my first-born child that Mr. Gore will never again hold an elected office.  He's a sixty-something who finally figured out what his calling is in life, and there's no way he'd want to throw that away just to be demoted to a thankless, tiring job that he already held for eight years. 

2.  John Edwards:  Why not? Because he's far less experienced in politics than Obama: he's only won a single election in his life, and lost two primaries and a general.  In fact, he's spent far more time running for elected offices than he has ever spent holding an elected office.  Also, he really failed in the Veep slot last time--he didn't bring a single new state, he did not cooperate, coordinate, or click with the nominee, and he badly flubbed the debate with Cheney. 

And, aside from a cadre of bloggers and a smattering of voters, most people just aren't that into into him.  Each time he's sought votes from the American people, the American people have responded with a resoundng "meh." What's more, the haircut/McMansion/trial lawyer thing reinforces the "Obama is an elitist" attack.  I think the elitist tag is total bullsh*t for both Obama and Edwards, but if Obama wants to innoculate himself to the smear, tapping Edwards is not the right way to do that.

3.  Hillary Clinton.  Forget the electoral pros and cons.  You can make a fine case that Clinton helps the ticket and you can make a fine case that she hurts it.  I don't think that's a settled issue. 

But to understand why Obama will never pick her, you really need to take a big picture view of the structure of American presidential power.  Most of the president's power is legally granted by the Constitution, but a real and not insignificant part of the presidency is an informal deference and attention granted to the POTUS by the American media, members of Congress, their own political party, and the American people.  Call it "the bully pulpit," although it's much more than that.  

Now, behind the scenes, many presidents are somewhat generous with their constitutional powers, and allow their vice-presidents, chiefs of staff, and other top advisers share a fair amount of the executive decision-making.  The Bush-Cheney power-sharing agreement of course comes to mind, but Clinton-Gore, Nixon-Kissinger,  Roosevelt-Hull, and Wilson-House comes to mind.  Each of those relationships was fraught with internal tensions, but that’s another story for another time.

But NO president has ever allowed another member of the executive branch to share his bully pulpit.  And if Hillary Clinton held the office of the Vice-President, President Obama would have to deal with a rival pole of power within his own executive branch.

It doesn't matter if Clinton promises to be meek and obedient (and frankly, it's a stretch to imagine her either promising that or keeping that promise). The fact is, she's already has a substantial position in American political life, and by virtue of her own status and her husband's status as an ex-president, the press corps, party bigwigs, and members of Congress will grant her a level of authority that no vice-president has ever had before (with the possible exception of Jefferson under Adams, and the original structure of executive branch that put the president’s chief rival under  him was such a disaster that it led to a constitutional amendment).  

Obama has proven that he likes to run a tidy, disciplined ship.  Senator Clinton has proven that she never had full control of either her staff or her husband during the campaign.  Why would he want to invite his once-acrimonious rival aboard, along with her own army of drama-loving, leak-prone staffers and her vocal, attention-loving ex-president husband?

There's just no reason Obama would want to share his public platform with someone who has arguably greater stature and lots of public sway. Every time that she disagrees with Obama, she will be able to threaten the use of her own bully pulpit, either explicitly or implicitly.  Every time Obama makes a tough call, he'll have to compromise with Hillary Clinton, and even then, he’ll have to worry about placating her staffers and her husband.  That's no way to run a White House.

Clintons supports can carp and threaten all they like now. But the fact is, if not picking Clinton turns out to cost Obama the election, so be it.  Because an Obama-Clinton White House would be a history-making political clusterf*ck on the grandest scale imaginable.