The Washington Post has endorsed Barack Obama for President.

About McCain:

• Disappointing Campaign
• Irresponsible pick for VP
  

About Obama

• Supple intelligence
• Great hopes in spite of lack of experience
• Conciliator and consensus builder

Here is a nice testament to his qualifications for dealing with the current financial crisis:

Overshadowing all of these policy choices may be the financial crisis and the recession it is likely to spawn. It is almost impossible to predict what policies will be called for by January, but certainly the country will want in its president a combination of nimbleness and steadfastness -- precisely the qualities Mr. Obama has displayed during the past few weeks.

I would add that we wouldn't want someone that's demonstrated erratic and irrational grand-standing during moments when communicating confidence and calmness are necessary.  Although this endorsement is not exactly unflattering to McCain, it is indeed a indicator that Obama has done an excellent job in convincing the hawkish types (like the WaPo editorial board) that he can pass as the leader of the free world... especially during a time when there are two wars, economic turmoil and a divided country to deal with.

This endorsement also speaks to where the electorate is at this moment: CHANGE.  Here is a key graff from the foreign policy section of the article:

ON THE SECOND set of issues, having to do with keeping America safe in a dangerous world, it is a closer call....
But he promises defter diplomacy and greater commitment to allies. His team overstates the likelihood that either of those can produce dramatically better results, but both are certainly worth trying.

While not a completely resounding endorsement, I think this last quote provides ample reason for any of Obama's supporters to hold their head up high:

Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

QTip.

From E.J. Dionne's piece today in Wapo which I highly recommend.

Palin has also brought out the very worst in McCain, forcing him to -- and I do not use this word lightly -- lie about her. In an interview broadcast Wednesday, National Public Radio's Steve Inskeep asked McCain if there would be "an occasion where you could imagine turning to Governor Palin for advice in a foreign policy crisis?"

McCain replied: "I've turned to her advice many times in the past. I can't imagine turning to Senator Obama or Senator Biden, because they've been wrong."

" Many times in the past?" McCain met Palin only twice before he selected her. What McCain said could not be true. And would anyone who listened to her last night really consult Palin on foreign policy?

It's arguable that he wasn't a liar before.

The core issue, of course, is the contrast between how Obama and McCain chose their running mates. Say what you will about Joe Biden -- and last night, he was far from being either the gaffe machine or the windbag so many predicted would appear on stage -- no one loses sleep at the idea of his being in the Oval Office. Obama picked a vice president more likely to help him govern the country than win the chance to do so.

How True.  How Sad.  Really, McCain gambled with the entire free world.  And it' still pretty scary that they have a chance (I know it's small... right now) to win in Nov. 4.  Scary.

With the Obama campaign running against the top of the ticket, the blog-torate on TPM are running against the bottom.  Evidence:

• Sarah Palin was my mayor
  
• Is Palin About to be Replaced ? Cancelled Appearances in 4 States
  
• Another Conservative Journalist Turns Against Palin
  
• PALIN Canceling MULTIPLE Fundraisers.....
  
• Palin to Institute That Which Already Exists
  
• Top Ten Reasons Palin Bounce Ended
  

6 of the top 10 most recommended posts are about Sarah Palin... Her electoral bounce has ended, but what about the blogger bounce?  No Palin fatigue on TPM?

Disclaimer: I (guiltily) read all of these posts since I am home caring for my son who has pink-eye.  BTW, his name would be Pistol Tanker Palin if the Palins were to name him.
Carry on... and please don't recommend.

The editorial board at the WaPo are not the most progressive individuals in the world.  However, the byline, "A strong convention speech alone can't answer the questions about her readiness", suggests that the hawkish/conservative editorial board may not have given her a complete pass... and may cue others in the MSM to not do the same.  You can read it here.  The last bit of the article:

To question her readiness is not to doubt her talent or intelligence; nor is it a reflection of gender bias, snobbery or any of the other sins that have been ascribed to those who worry about Ms. Palin as vice president. Ms. Palin last night noted tartly "that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone." It is a good applause line. But the fact is that Ms. Palin has an astonishingly thin résumé -- mayor of a small town, governor of a sparsely populated state for less than two years -- for someone hoping to ascend to national leadership. The country will need to hear much more from Ms. Palin before being convinced of the soundness of Mr. McCain's judgment.

This will be a crucial 36 hours for the Obama campaign as they seek to shape America's first impression.  It will be a delicate balancing act if they do it on their own.  If Hillary does it, she could singlehandedly put this election to rest with a hard-hitting but accurate ad for the Obama campaign.  36 hours.

3 years ago you shared this special moment with George Bush.  From the looks of it, you had a blast.

The people of New Orleans, unfortunately, were a bit "swamped" at the time and could join in the celebration as they were waiting for your twin to do something... like his job.

As you look back on the wonderful moments and days after your celebration and the 3rd anniversary of the stellar job your party did in handling this crisis, I hope you're happy with yourself and your accomplishments.  Let there be no doubt that you thought that things went "swimmingly" as there was no need for any oversight of the response to the Hurricane that threatened to rain on your party... 'cause you voted against it:

To establish a congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Region of the United States especially in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and other areas impacted in the aftermath and make immediate corrective measures to improve such responses in the future.

Nay.

Happy Birthday.

Please change the Intrade and Pollster Widgets to reflect the new stage of the election cycle... In the spirit of Unity of course.

We are in a  new era.   While you're here, check out this amazing Toles Cartoon from the Wapo.  While it warms my heart there is still more work to be done, racial front.

That said, the symbolism of this occasion is not lost.

Carry on.

John McCain:

“It’s not a timetable; it’s victory. It’s victory, which I have always predicted.. I know from experience, you set a day for surrender — which is basically what you do when you say you are withdrawing — and you will pay a much a heavier price later on.”

Translation:

Mission Accomplished in 2013. It's only a timetable when Dems say it. When I say it, it's victory. I predicted victory... so it's victory. If a Dem does it though, it's surrender. The difference is that I'm leaving a small number of troops while they plan to pull out a lot of them. That's why I am the American president Americans have been waiting for in America.... America!"

And Victory Defined by the man himself:

The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.

Why is it that the obvious senility of this remark gets a free pass without so much as a whimper from the MSM? This has to be one of the biggest changes of position that McCain has had since the start of his campaign. He is in "lala land"

McCain is slowly distancing himself from the Republican brand he wooed so feverishly during the primary season. Unfortunately a distracted electorate is letting him slowly creep away from the toxic pile that is conservative ideology over the last decade to position himself as his own man.

It remains to be seen the MSM, progressives and the public in general will let him get away with this.

From the Des Moines Register Debate eons ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKHBSFSosY

MODERATOR: Senator Obama, you have Bill Clinton's former National Security Adviser, State Department policy director and maybe secretary among others, advising you. With relatively little foreign policy experience of your own, how will you rely on so many Clinton advisers, and still deliver the kind of break from the past that you're promising voters?

(Laughter)

Obama: You know I am --

Hillary: (Laughing) I want to hear that.

Obama: Well, Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well. (Laughter)

The opening paragraph from MSNBC's Analysis of how Obama will battle the GOP for the presidency:

How do you know if Barack Obama is unhappy with what you're saying— or not saying? At meetings of his closest advisers, he likes to lean back, put his feet on the table and close his eyes. If he doesn't like how the conversation is going, he will lean forward, put his feet on the floor and "adjust his socks, kind of start tugging at them," says Michael Strautmanis, a counselor to the campaign. Obama wants people to talk, but he doesn't want to intimidate them. "If you haven't said anything, he'll call on you," says Strautmanis. "He's never said it, but he usually thinks if somebody is very quiet it's because they disagree with what everybody is saying … so Barack will call on you and say, 'You've been awfully quiet'." There are no screamers on Team Obama; one senior Obama aide says he's heard him yell only twice in four years. Obama was explicit from the beginning: there was to be "no drama," he told his aides. "I don't want elbowing or finger-pointing. We're going to rise or fall together." Obama wanted steady, calm, focused leadership; he wanted to keep out the grandstanders and make sure the quiet dissenters spoke up. A good formula for running a campaign—or a presidency.

I certainly hope he's ready for what's coming.  It won't be pretty.  I've said this before and I'll say it again here.  I'm starry-eyed and naive with respect to the political process.  That said, I wish that one's character, quality and intellect were the prevailing forces in selecting a president and not the politics of mud-slinging, destruction, gotcha and sound-bite.  For all that she did, I am thankful for Hillary dragging it out this far.  She "vetted" him and prepared him for what's coming.  One has to think that his campaign is now structured in a way that it would not have been had Hillary not tried him.  The more I hear about Senator Obama, the more I believe that he is the right person for this moment in time.

From WaPo's Campaign Trail Blog:

"Let me tell you, when all the votes are counted, when Gary comes in, I think you're looking at something for the word to see," Clay, an Obama supporter, said in a telephone interview from Obama's Gary headquarters. "I don't know what the numbers are yet, but Gary has absolutely produced in large numbers for Obama here."

Apparently the GOTV effort has resulted in canvassers encountering complete neighborhoods that have already voted.

As this moves to the bottom of the heap with the slew of news coming in about the IN/NC Primaries, it occurred to me that a new calculus is really at the heart of Senator Clinton's argument.

To understand we could take a look at where have the metrics shifted since Obama's partial vetting?  The Rev. Wright Controversy began on March 13th with ABC news reporting on the now infamous sermons.

It may eventually be an argument brought forward to  completely disregard (or "disenfranchise" depending on your point of view) a whole new set of voters.

What contests have occurred since March 13th?
* Pennsylvania
* Guam
* North Carolina
* Indiana
You may run the numbers yourself  but, with Pennsylvania and Indiana as "wins" for the working-class argument you will see that Clinton has a "strong" case for pushing this argument.  Looking at the race with this extremely narrow perspective you can see that she is closer to winning on at least 2 fronts:
1) Popular Vote
(MI and FL shouldn't count here since they occurred earlier than the date in question)
2) Pledged Delegates

Coupled with a massive push of the Obama working-class deficit argument will super-delegates buy the argument?  Unlikely, but it will be an excuse for those who want one to show their support for her.

Just a thought... But I wouldn't surprised.

I'm not capable of in-depth analysis like some of you veterans here on TPMc but here are some thoughts-on the "crisis".

One of the key features of a good leader is the willingness to sacrifice one's self for the good of the team/group.  Forget the ability to inspire others for the moment because you could essentially argue an advantage for either Obama and Clinton on this issue. However, with respect to self-preservation vs group-preservation, the recent gas economic meta-debate has been extremely revealing.  Consider the following 2 points:
<ol><li>
It is essentially an estabilished fact that the current gas proposal embraced by both McCain and Hillary Clinton is bad for the U.S. from a strategic point of view and essentially counter-productive in the short-term.  Economists from all stripes/parties/affiliations agree that this is a BAD idea.  It is bad for YOU and it is bad for ME.  It's a bad idea.</li>

<li>2) In order for the average citizen to know that this is a bad idea, they would require to do some research or a little more than cursory reading to see the facts in black and white (even the MSM Papers like WaPo and the NY Times).  Most people will not research this plan and will conceviably and most certainly come away with the idea that "Gas prices are high.  McCain and Hillary want me to save at the pump. What wonderful people!"  Changing this perception requires providing voters with information and the average voter is not as informed as my esteemed colleagues on TPM regarldess of who you support (understatement).</li>
</ol>

Why McCain proposed this inane plan is a post on its own... perhaps to take on his perceived and verifiable weakness on matters of the economy... or something else(senility? bravado?). This leaves the current Democratic presidential candidates to make a choice between:

<ol><li>
a) Supporting bad policy for their own political interest.  This will most likely be beneficial in the short-term in the form of votes from low-information voters.  However, it comes at the expense setting progressive energy policy backwards and filling the coffers of oil executives and share-holders.
</li>

<li>b) Rejecting this bad policy in spite of the political "suicide" this decision may cause, especially considering the immediate stakes of determining a nominee.  The short-term benefits from a voter standpoint would require enormous resources ($$$) to educate the electorate but essentially result in less votes in upcoming contests. Only well-informed voters will know that you were right.
</li>

<strong>Senator Clinton chose "a)".  Senator Obama chose "b)" </strong>

To add insult to injury, Senator Clinton has called on congress to declare there allegiance via their support or rejection of her proposal.  If the last 7.5 years have taught us anything, it has taugh us this: It is extremely dangerous to have a person in a leadership position who, in the face of the "wrongness" of their decision chooses to disadvantage the citizens of this country for their own political gain.

Senator Obama is showing real leadership.  In the face of this gas "crisis" and the current onslaught on his campaign, he has chosen the hard route becasue it will be a better decision for you.  I'm being presumptious in saying this but he is not thinking about North Carolina and Indiana solely... He's thingking about the United States of America (including Guam which he won by the way)... And this is real leadership.

What good is being a fighter when you're fighting only for victory in the next political battle?
What good is experience when this experience teaches you to triangulate your way to YOUR solution instead of the BEST solution?
A good leader chooses the best way in spite of how difficult the decision.

This is the difference between a Good President and a Great President.

Testing Tags allowed in the TPM  composer.  Please do NOT recommend.  However, it would be good to have a quick list of allowed tags on the composer page.:
<ul><li>Unordered list item 1 (UL)</li>
<li>Unordered List Item 2 </li>
</ul>

<ol>
<li>Ordered List Item 1(OL)</li>
<li>Ordered List Item 2 </li>
</ol>

<blockquote>This text is surrounded by BlockQuote </blockquote>

<strong>Strong Tag</strong>
<div>DIV tag</div>
<span>SPAN tag</span>

<div>DIV tag</div>
<span>SPAN tag</span>

In this morning's editorial from the Washington Post there is a frank discussion of the Political Courage required to actually oppose a measure that tactically and reflexively makes sense during the $4/Gallon Gas "crisis" in favor of a strategic and pragmatic approach to solving the root problem.

In short:
Mcain/Clinton = Tactical, Reflexive, Short-sighted
Obama = Courageous, Visionary

The best we can hope for is that politicians, especially presidential candidates, will avoid exploiting the issue for short-term political advantage. Alas, that hope was not warranted in the case of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has followed Republican John McCain in recommending a suspension of the federal gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

We have to agree with Sen. Barack Obama, the only candidate who has refused to play this game. "It's not an idea to get you through the summer," he said. "It's an idea to get them through an election." His opponents no doubt hope that Mr. Obama's stand will prove to be political suicide. We think it qualifies as political courage.

Makes me wish that we would stop talking about electability and more about the character and disposition necessary to be a good president.  I realize that this is impossible given the state of political discourse... but what a difference that would be.

...to Obama

From the AP. Joe Andrew is also writing a letter to other superdelegates to explain his decision and encourage them to heal the rift in the party. 

"I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party,"

Joe Andrew, who was Democratic National Committee chairman from 1999-2001, planned a news conference Thursday in his hometown of Indianapolis to urge other Hoosiers to support Obama in Tuesday's primary...

Bill Clinton appointed Andrew chairman of the DNC near the end of his presidency, and Andrew endorsed the former first lady last year on the day she declared her candidacy for the White House.