Charlie Crist endorses President Obama, and prepares a speech for the DNC.

Methinks Charlie Crist won't be an Independent for long.

As Republicans gather in Tampa to nominate Mitt Romney, Americans can expect to hear tales of how President Obama has failed to work with their party or turn the economy around.

But an element of their party has pitched so far to the extreme right on issues important to women, immigrants, seniors and students that they've proven incapable of governing for the people. Look no further than the inclusion of the Akin amendment in the Republican Party platform, which bans abortion, even for rape victims.

The truth is that the party has failed to demonstrate the kind of leadership or seriousness voters deserve.

Pundits looking to reduce something as big as a statewide election to a single photograph have blamed the result of my 2010 campaign for U.S. Senate on my greeting of President Obama. I didn't stand with our president because of what it could mean politically; I did it because uniting to recover from the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes was more important than party affiliation. I stood with our nation's leader because it was right for my state.

President Obama has a strong record of doing what is best for America and Florida, and he built it by spending more time worrying about what his decisions would mean for the people than for his political fortunes. That's what makes him the right leader for our times, and that's why I'm proud to stand with him today.

Oh, and there's that little speech he's preparing for next week.

Former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida will speak at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, three Democratic officials confirmed to CNN Monday.

The move follows his endorsement of President Barack Obama on Sunday. Crist cited the president's leadership following the economic collapse and surrounding health care, as well as his disagreements with the GOP platform as reasons for his backing.

I have no doubt that Charlie Crist is a small-c Conservative, but this values are perfectly in line with Democratic ones.

What Colin Powell was in 2008, will Charlie Crist be in 2012?

From Politico:

Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said Tuesday he wouldn’t rule out voting for President Barack Obama in November.

Crist — who was a member of the Republican party until 2010 and is now a registered independent — said in interviews with MSNBC and CNN that he would “consider” casting his ballot for Obama on election day.

“Consider? Sure, I would consider that,” Crist said on MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown.” “I really think he’s sincere and genuine. I think we have a lot time, a lot of issues to talk about, but I think, in his heart, he’s trying to do what’s right for the country overall.”

And in an interview with CNN, Crist pointed to the improving economy as a reason he might vote for Obama in November.

The Media meltdown over the Rally to Restore Sanity continues (VIDEO)

Yes, I have my own issues with Keith Olbermann (directly apparently). Still, I missed this tweet, where he claims Jon "jumped the shark":

"It wasn’t a big shark but Jon Stewart jumped one just now with the “everybody on Thr cable is the same” naiveté"

Riiiight.

The normally reasonable Ta-Neishi Coates chimed in as well:

I also think Stewart's critique of media as some kind of corrupting force, at times, borders on demagoguery. It's funny to humiliate MSNBC, Fox News or CNN. In fact, both networks are desperately fighting to give their slice of America what they hunger for. We may not like it. It may seem insane to us--but it should never be forgotten that Bill O'Reilly is serving an actual audience, one that would surely invent O'Reilly if he didn't exist. Indeed they've invented him before.

It's interesting that Stewart took a stand on Rick Sanchez's firing. He's certainly argued that Williams shouldn't have been fired before on his show. I may have missed it, but I don't recall him being nearly that generous with Sanchez.

Are we detecting a little media sensitivity out there?

UNLEASH THE MEDIA!!!



Actually, Ta-Neishi, pretty much everyone in America (except for you, apparently) heard Jon Stewart say...on several occassions...that he shouldn't have been fired.

But it wasn't all bad. Andrew Sullivan chimed in:

The point, it seemed to me, was that politics isn't all there is to life, there is something slightly off about those who think it is, and that political ideology has come to define us culturally and personally far too much. So this wasn't an angry rally for the alienated Democratic left; or even a joyous rally like last fall's March for Equality; or a desperate and frustrated rally like the Tea Partiers. No one was demanding their country back; they were just demanding, well asking, for a little less polarization, and a little more mutual understanding. It was an Obama rally that didn't want to be an Obama rally. And it was only an Obama rally sotto voce because he seems currently the only adult in Washington with any interest in compromising with anyone.

There are, after all, three political groupings in American politics Republicans, Democrats and Independents. But there are also three cultural groupings: ideologues, the pragmatists, and the totally indifferent. This was a rally for the pragmatists, which made it, for my money, the core Obama base.

Remember, Andrew's the Conservative in this equation.

UPDATE 3:21pm, Pacific: Believe it or not, Huffington Post looks like it has a good slideshow on the Media reaction to the Rally.

So a (former) Republican shows President Obama in a campaign ad...endorsing him?!?

Of course, it's former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chaffee.

Watch and be amazed.

TPM: Sorry, this is why I don't like or trust Michael Bloomberg...

Too full of himself, if you ask me.  Now, this:

Two years ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg had the city's term limits law extended so he could run for a third term, but now he says he supports a ballot measure to set it back to two terms.

After Bloomberg abandoned the idea of running for U.S. president in 2008, he persuaded the City Council to extend the term limits law, arguing the city needed him to stay on to get through the national financial crisis. He promised he'd convene a charter commission to put the question before voters again.

Voters get that chance Nov. 2. The ballot question asks whether to amend the city's charter to two terms; if voters check "yes," the law will be changed back to a limit of two consecutive four-year terms, and if they reject it, the three-term law will stand.

The billionaire mayor, who founded the financial information company Bloomberg LP, was asked Monday which way he would vote.

"I'm voting to restore it," he said.

Bloomberg, a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-independent, didn't explain his reasons, but spokesman Stu Loeser said the mayor always supported three terms just for himself and officeholders at the time because the economic recession was an extraordinary circumstance.

Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Bill Maher (VIDEO)

Bill makes it plain again. It's still all about race.

Mr. "the next six more months in Iraq are critical" has spoken again.

In addition to the likes of Arianna Huffington, Glenn Greenwald, Robert Kuttner, and many others, I've always held a soft spot for Thomas "six more months" Friedman...

Actually, I've always held a soft spot for trying to kick him when he's down, whenever possible.

It's not just the smarmy attitude, the cocksure "I know what's best for you" attitude, it's that he was dead-ass wrong on the Iraq War, and I don't think has admitted it yet...to this day.

To be sure, I'd love to spend some more time ripping apart his annual "If only we had a party as reasonable as me" column, but apparently, Jonathan Bernstein beat me to it.

And so did Steve Benen...

...and Dave Weigel...

...and whole mess of others. (Like Erza Klein, and Ta-Neishi Coates...)

Lawrence O'Donnell's interview with Charlie Crist (VIDEO)

Almost missed this. Shame on me.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From Greg Sargent:

Both Rubio and Meek, for their own reasons, are pounding Crist with the same attack line -- that despite his party switch to independent, he's a Republican through and through. Call it the Charlie Crist crunch.

Case in point: The Rubio campaign blasted out video today of Crist on MSNBC, getting pressed on whether there are any positions he's taken as a "loyal Republican" that he would no longer hold. His response? "No, not really":

At this point, the vote is split and hardening. At some point, people are gonna have to make a choice, is this about one guy (Meek or Crist, either of whom I can live with) or stopping Rubio?

And about those Independents?

From Andrew Sullivan, quoting a Congressional Connection Poll:

The number of independents who said neither administration's policies would help was higher than the overall sample, 27 percent. Forty-three percent of independents favored Obama's policies, while 20 percent favored Bush's.

Sullivan continued:

I have a simple suggestion for Democratic candidates: ask which of Bush's policies does their Republican opponent oppose? Keep asking. If they say sending, ask them what they intend to cut. And keep asking.

I still think he's wrong on Journolist, but at least he dialed that back today.

Episode V: The Eisenhower Wing Strikes Back!

I can't claim prescience on this, since I've been reading in other news outlets and other blogs (Kos) that this might happen. But when Crist decided to start doubling down on the Stimulus, the tea leaves were there to be read.

And now, two quote-unquote independent sources claim it's about to happen.

Now, what does this mean? Simply put, I don't know. Crist is popular in Florida. He should win the General. He just can't win the Primary.

Another question is what do Democrats do? If Democrats hang together neither Marco Rubio (who has his own problems) nor Crist is going to Foggy Bottom, because they'll split the Republican vote. In fact, Crist's only sure way to victory is to run as a Democrat, but would the Democrats have him?

This seems to be like the New York 23rd, this is more about not getting "Scozzafava-ed", as opposed to making Crist the junior Senator from Florida.

More as it comes...

Nate Silver: These were Ron Paul Rallies???

I think there's something to this. And knowing a bit about Ron Paul's background, the racism doesn't surprise me either.

I didn’t wander down to the Capitol and National Mall on Saturday because I’m nursing a bum ankle from a spill I took playing pickup hoops. But I wish had been able to go, and I further wish I had developed even a crude survey instrument to administer to protesters. What I would have asked them is one, simple question, “Whom did you support in last year’s Republican primaries?”

My suspicion is there would be an unusually high number of people replying, "Ron Paul."

...

...strip away the angry rhetoric and easily-mocked signs to listen to what people are complaining about--and, perhaps more tellingly, what they are not complaining about--and the protesters sound eerily Paulesque. They are complaining about government intrusion: oppressive use of government (czars!), too much intervention in personal lives and markets (death panels!), long-term debt obligations (where will the money come from?!), and the proper role of the federal government (it's all so unconstitutional!)--that is, they fret that Obama is going to destroy America and American values from within. What the vast majority do not seem to be complaining about, so far as I can tell, is how the Administration is fighting and managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or its overall security and intelligence posture--that is, they don't seem too worried that Obama is going to let America be destroyed from the outside.

Granted, a plausible explanation for a general absence of defense or foreign policy critiques is that the national conversation right now is focused squarely on health care coverage, deficits and debt, and domestic policy more generally. It may well be that if I poked a Saturday protester in DC he or she would have had something critical to say about Obama’s foreign and defense policies, too. Still, it's interesting to consider the possibility that the town halls of Summer 2009 are a rekindled version of Ron Paul rallies in 2007 and 2008. And one of the reasons I suspect this is the nature of the fervor itself--its tenor, its intensity, its certainty, and especially its language.

Actually, I disagree with Nate on one part. A lot of these people do think the President is out to hand over the country to the Terrorists.

AFL-CIO of Connecticut...not happy with Lieberman anymore

Saw this on Kos, but linked from the New Haven Independent instead:

Three years ago the state AFL-CIO convened in New Haven and embraced U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman’s reelection. Thursday the AFL-CIO reconvened here — and made Lieberman its target.

The occasion was the state labor movement’s biennial convention at the Omni Hotel. The convention runs through Friday. A central theme of this year’s convention: Push politicians in Washington to pass universal health care with a “public option” — government-backed insurance.

Connecticut Sen. Lieberman has been a prominent opponent of a public option and of moving with what he calls too much speed toward universal coverage.

“Joe’s gotta go!” union members yelled at a rally on the Green during Thursday’s lunch break.

It doesn't get a lot better for Joe from there.

Apparently, as Kos reminds us, this is the same Union that once said that "Joe was with us on everything but the war".

Talk about a self-inflicted wound. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to see where Lieberman was headed. But whatever, I look forward to having the AFL-CIO on our side in 2012 as we finally end Joe Lieberman's career (and no, not with Dick Blumenthal).