President Obama's commencement address at Hampton University (VIDEO)

Yes! To a historically Black University!

Yes! He did chip on the iPad, though the story's a tad overblown.

The Fireside chat for May 8, 2010 (VIDEO)

The President goes through the benefits in health insurance reform that are already kicking in for young adults, retirees, and families, and says more benefits are coming down the pike.

I agree...

...with Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) when he cracked on the President:

"Telling people we're not going to get a legislative solution this year, or to suggest maybe that it's not possible this year, is not in the best interests of the nation."

Not sure if "Machete" is going to help... (VIDEO)

Yes, this a trailer for an actual movie. This isn't Funny or Die stuff, this is coming out September 3rd, 2010. (Can't say much for its box office prospects).



Let's be honest, the trailer was cut to respond to/take advantage of the Arizona Law. As quick as Rodriguez works, this had to have been in the works for the last year at least. (I've been hearing about a Machete movie since the first Spy Kids movie came out, so...)

This is Duncan Hunter's Brother?!? (VIDEO)

Okay, basic story: there's a canal separating the U.S. and Mexico near San Diego. It 's also the most dangerous body of water in the U.S. as crossing it has cost 550 people, mostly illegal immigrants, their lives.

And...there is a avid right-winger out there, working overtime, risking arrest, to put in some semblance of safety features across this canal, to allow the illegals to at least arrive alive...

...and this right winger is Duncan Hunter's brother???

Great Gosh a'mighty...


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Comparitive Journalism 101

Mr. President, are you sure you want me reading the Huffington Post? I'm a Liberal, and I'm not sure.

Here's the headline on the front of their Politics page right now:

WHITE HOUSE NOT BUDGING ON DRILLING
Gibbs Says It's 'Premature' To Take Additional Offshore Drilling Off The Table

The Obama administration said on Monday that it remains "premature" to rule out including additional offshore drilling as part of comprehensive energy legislation, even as Senate Democrats warn that such a provision would make the bill "dead on arrival."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that the president will determine whether to stay with or abandon his call for additional drilling off various parts of the coast once he gets the findings of an investigation into the massive oil spill in the Gulf.

Funny, because Greg Sargent at the Plum Line (and a TPM alum) has this headline off the same damn story:

Did Gibbs Open Door To Reinstating Drilling Ban?

President Obama has an opportunity on his hands: He could, if he so chose, seize on the Gulf oil spill to reverse his announcement of new offshore drilling and reinstate the ban on it. No idea if he’ll take this opportunity, but it’s there.

The left is redoubling its push for him to resinstate the ban, arguing that strong leaders aren’t afraid to change their minds when empirical evidence suggests they should do so. And Obama has repeatedly said he will base his administration’s decisions on “science” and “facts.”

This strong new MoveOn ad, for instance, argues that “sometimes great leaders are tested.” The ad calls for the ban to be revived, and asks: “President Obama: Will you lead our country into a clean energy future?”

At the press briefing just now, Robert Gibbs was pressed on whether this is a possibilty, and interestingly, he didn’t rule it out. Asked if the administration’s thinking had shifted, Gibbs noted that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was probing the spill, adding:

“This is an administation that is going to take whatever we get from that and have that dicate our decision-making going forward. It would be premature to get to far ahead of where Secretary Salazar’s investigation is…

“The investigation is to determine what happened and to use that information going forward to dictate any changes in our policy.”

That seems to leave the door open to a possible policy change. Now, we don’t know what the investigation will find, and it’s very possible that the administration will ultimately argue that this one disaster is an exception and doesn’t undercut the case for more drilling.

But either way, Obama has an opening here to change direction. And if he were to reinstate the drilling ban, he would be in a better position to argue that the spill proves in vivid, horrifying detail that the cost of remaining addicted to oil, and the price of inaction on energy reform, are too great to risk any longer.

The President's busy-busy Sunday... (VIDEO)

Both New York City and the Gulf Coast in one brief statement. I'm sure more is to come...

President Obama's Commencement Address at...that University (VIDEO)

...that University being...Michigan.

Can you tell I'm an Ohio State Fan? (What, the President couldn't have gone to Columbus first? Michigan isn't in play. Ohio might be.)

Maybe I'm being too hard on Michigan after all. When your Football Program sucks, and your Basketball program sucks, you need something to justify your existence. Just don't go bringing down the Boss's Presidency, Big Blue!

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

Oh, and this may be my 1000th post. Enjoy!

The Fireside chat for May 1, 2010 (VIDEO)

As the President beats back lobbyists seeking to weaken Wall Street Reform, he talks about an even broader threat that would vastly expand the influence of massive industries and their lobbyists in Washington. A recent Supreme Court decision opened the floodgates for corporations, including foreign corporations, to spend endless money on political ads that would give them even more power at the expense of American families – the President pledges to fight for reforms to stem that influence.

What scares me about Arizona...

...is apparently what scares Ta-Neishi Coates of the Atlantic Monthly as well.

Carrying an illegal gun in New York is a crime, and it was a crime before New York City began searching people, stopped for another infraction, for illegal guns. Likewise, being an illegal alien was also, necessarily, a crime before Arizona's law. Both laws also place a burden of search on people who may well be innocent.

But whereas New York proving your innocence in New York means simply not having an illegal gun on your person, proving your innocence in Arizona means carrying around identification that you aren't an illegal alien. The right comparison isn't New York requiring you to submit to a search for illegal guns--it's New York requiring you to carry proof that you don't own an illegal gun.

Put differently, it was always a crime to carry an illegal gun in New York, but it was not always a (state) crime in Arizona for legal immigrants to leave their proof of residency at home. Now it is. Moreover, from what I can tell, this actually understates the law. Essentially, Arizona has made it a crime for anyone in the state to not have proof of citizenship on them at all times. Defenders of the law will say that police still have to stop you for something, and they still have to "suspect" that you did something.

Forgive, but I don't find that comforting. Amadou Diallo is dead because the police "suspected" he was drawing a gun. Oscar Grant is dead because the police "suspected" he needed to be tased. My old friend, Prince Jones, Howard University student and father of a baby girl, was murdered by the police in front of his daughter's home because police "suspected" he was a drug-dealer. (The cop was not kicked off the force.) Only a year ago, I was stopped in Chelsea, coming from an interview with NPR, because police "suspected" I was the Latino male who'd recently robbed someone.

This comes down to police power, and how comfortable you are with its extension. George Will, in a bit of populist demagoguery, implies that the critics of the Arizona law are people who only know illegal immigrants as cheap labor. But I suspect Will mostly has the exact same relationship with illegal immigrants. Moreover, I suspect that he only knows the police as the kind of Officer Friendlies who only arrest "the bad people."

I don't want to be cheap here, but it needs to said that when you actually know decent people who are dead because of our insane drug war, your perspective on police power changes. This is a multi-million dollar lawsuit waiting to happen. Someone is going to get killed. And the fact that "the vast majority of police are awesome" will not bring them back.

"I measure progress by a different pulse" (VIDEO)

3.2 GDP Growth is undeniably good news, but...

After the single biggest economic crisis in our lifetimes, we’re heading in the right direction. We’re moving forward. Our economy is stronger; that economic heartbeat is growing stronger.

But I measure progress by a different pulse -– the progress the American people feel in their own lives day in, day out. And this week, I spent a few days visiting with folks in small towns in the Midwest -– places where the damage done by the worst recession in our lifetimes is profound. They’re still trying to recover from a shockwave of lost homes, lost businesses, and more than eight million lost jobs. It’s a tragedy that has families and communities across America too often feeling like they’re on life support.

So while today’s GDP report is an important milepost on our road to recovery, it doesn’t mean much to an American who has lost his or her job and can’t find another. For millions of Americans -– our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens ready and willing to get back to work -– “you’re hired” is the only economic news they’re waiting to hear. And they are why the work of moving this economy forward remains our focus every single day.

Now, government can’t replace every job that has been lost. That’s not government’s role. It is America’s business all across the country -- the private sector, businesses -- that have always been and will always be the engines of our job creation. Our task, then, is to create the conditions necessary for those businesses to open their doors, expand their operations, and ultimately hire more workers.

President Obama's eulogy for Dr. Dorothy Height (VIDEO)

The President talks Wall Street Reform back home in Quincy, IL (VIDEO)

The Washington Post's Proud Tradition of Racism Continues... (a follow up)

The Washington Post (wanting to feed the controversy fire, while at the same time wanting to avoid getting burned) put up a response to the column I mentioned earlier. Kevin Huffman is also the parent of bi-racial (non-black) children, but unlike Mrs. Chang seems to have a clue.

Let me start by suggesting this may slightly over-value the deep personal meaning of the Census form. I viewed the form as a seven-minute exercise in ensuring that the District of Columbia gets to count my whole family as residents. Maybe we can even get enough funding to fix the Metro escalators. I hadn’t realized the need to express solidarity with my relatives and ancestors, living and dead.

Anyway, like Chang, my kids are half Asian and half white, which led me to identify them on the Census as… Asian. My brother is half black and half white. He went with biracial. Somehow neither of these decisions has resulted in meaningfully different personal connections for my family.

The question of race as biological or sociological construct is complex. While Chang may wish Obama took a more literalist perspective and identified as biracial, I’m quite sure she doesn’t have the right to judge.

Exactly. Well said, Mr. Huffman.

I'm sorry that President Obama didn't fulfill Mrs. Chang's personal ambitions by making a personal choice on his own personal census form.

I'm equally sorry that the default position of too many Americans is that our fellow citizens of biracial ancestry should automatically want to set aside their African Heritage. Thus, I still think Mrs. Chang is a racist.

The Washington Post's Proud Tradition of Racism Continues...

The Washington Post, a proud tradition of serving a predominately African-American City, with writers who are either racially clueless or racially hostile.

Despite being raised by a white mother and white grandparents, despite have spent most of his childhood in the rainbow state of Hawaii, despite clearly being comfortable in almost any type of crowd (though I suppose Tea Partyers might give him pause), the president apparently considers himself only black. "I self-identify as an African American. That's how I am treated and that's how I am viewed. And I'm proud of it," he has said. But he also argued in his famous speech about race that he could no more disown the Reverend Jeremiah Wright "than I can my white grandmother." With his census choice, he has done precisely that.

No, Elizabeth. (And please learn to spell Tea-Partiers correctly).

Granted, your racial worldview is limited. And I say this because despite all the other racial problems this country has had, it has primarily divided itself on the black-white axis. You have no experience in this world, by your own admission, yet you continue to flap your gums.

For years, my people have been regarded as second-class citizens or deserving of the back of the bus. We are citizens looked down by our fellow citizens. And now that the first African-American President has chosen to assert his own (dare I say) blackness, this is somehow inappropriate.

I would like to say that Elizabeth isn't a racist, but I can't say that. Somehow for a lot of Americans (not all), identifying as Black when you are biracial is just wrong. It is the desire of the dominant majority for people like the President to push aside his African-American heritage in favor of the other. Any other choice is wrong. Tiger Woods ceded to your wishes, Mrs. Chang...and you see how well it's worked out.

"I self-identify as an African American. That's how I am treated and that's how I am viewed. And I'm proud of it."

So am I.

Go to hell, Mrs. Chang.

Kenneth Blackwell: Intellectual Fraud...

I don't have the heart to put up the interview with Jon Stewart eviscerating the former Secretary of State for Ohio, Kenneth "Deibold" Blackwell. But TPM did. Watch it there.

"How's that hopey-changey thing workin' out for ya?"

Quite well. Thank you for asking Half-term Governor Sarah Palin.

Let's see, Republicans being whittled down under a furious Democratic assault against their filibuster of Financial Regulatory Reform?

Seems like change to me.


Oh, and another thing, Half-Governor? You're still a racist.

Bigoted Woman? (VIDEO)

A first for Fort McHenry. Covering Politics not of these shores.

I got this from Andrew Sullivan's site, who's been covering this non-stop.

Long and short of it is this: this...isn't going to go well for (let's just say it) former Prime Minister Gordon Brown.



I asked the question (via Email) of Andrew Sullivan: "Is this woman bigoted"? Because it all sounds innocuous, lovely and British over the YouTube. So you may not think so.

But shift the background from Rochester, UK to say...I don't know, Tempe, Arizona, and replace the words Eastern European with Mexican. Now how does she sound?!?

As the GOP prepares to cave...

Hmmm...

Bipartisan Wall Street reform negotiations appeared on the brink of collapse Tuesday night after Republican and Democratic principals found themselves at an impasse over the issue of consumer financial protection. But though Republicans have been promising all week to sustain a filibuster, blocking debate on the Democrats' legislation, they now seem prepared to cede the current fight, explicitly saying that, if talks don't bear fruit soon, they'll allow the bill to move to the floor.

"I don't feel like there's a real possibility in the near future of getting a bipartisan bill... I just don't feel that's a possibility," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) in response to a question from TPMDC.

Corker hasn't decided if he himself will ultimately decide to break a GOP filibuster of financial reform legislation--but he's fairly certain that a global agreement between Democrats and Republicans is likely impossible. "I don't feel under any pressure [but] I'm just far less optimistic than I've ever been."

Unlike Corker, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), long thought to be a financial reform swing vote, said he'll give negotiations between Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) a bit more time--he said he's likely to vote to sustain the filibuster again tomorrow. But if there's no breakthrough soon, he's going to vote with the Democrats to debate the issue on the floor.

And what did Jonathan Chait say...oh, yesterday?!??

Republicans think they can limit the political damage of a filibuster if they reach a bipartisan deal. But what incentive do the democrats have to reach a deal? If they can force the Republicans to maintain a filibuster, why not keep the issue going until November? The strategy here seems to be, take a political hit by opposing popular legislation, and then hope that somehow this will strengthen the party's hand in the negotiations to follow. How will this work? It's like trying to bluff your opponent in poker when both you and he know he has the stronger hand.

What's more, Republicans are no longer even pretending to be able to hold the line after today's vote.

Now that the Democrats know the Republicans are planning to defect after the first vote, why on Earth would they compromise? Moreover, what is the point of taking the hit by filibustering reform in the first place? It could work, in theory, if you could bluff the Democrats into thinking the GOP might hold the line indefinitely. But I'm pretty sure the Democratic party has access to articles published in Politico, which means the jig is up. So now the Republicans are trying to bluff in poker when they and their opponent know they have the weaker hand, and their opponent has heard them admit that their strategy is to bet for a couple rounds and fold before the end. Why not just cut their losses now? This makes zero sense.

As Always...

Richard Cohen, as ever...with his head stuck up his @#$...

The President and Vice-President's Eulogies at Beckley, West Virginia (VIDEO)

First off, Biden gave a barnburner of a eulogy. He may have been (for the first time) a little better than the President. But the President was the man they all came to see, and they gave him a warm, incredible reception.

The President appears at 7:35 into the video for his own speech.

I love the President n' all...

...but I don't do Yankee Videos. Ever. Find it your dang self.

Also apparently, a controversy's already building about somethin' Obama said. Thus, I link you to Keith Olbermann's baseball Blog.

"By the time I get to Arizona..." Part 2

Can't claim credit for this, because a caller to the Randi Rhodes show pointed it out first.

Legal question:

It seems to me that the U.S. 14th Amendment to the Constitution pretty much eliminates the new Arizona statue. Did the State of Arizona even have the right to enact such a law?

The Fourteenth Amendment - Citizenship Rights. Ratified July 9, 1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The Fireside chat for April 24, 2010 (VIDEO)

As the auto industry and financial markets begin to stabilize, the President says the government’s emergency interventions can now wind down. He pledges that real reform, particularly on Wall Street, must now begin.

"By the time I get to Arizona..." (VIDEO)

No, the President did not quote Public Enemy during his speech today.

This is from a Naturalization Ceremony for American Soldiers on the White House lawn. It was a nice ceremony, but the President took a moment (about 16:00 minutes in) to blast Arizona and their (at the time) about-to-be-signed racist-ass law.



From the White House website:

...people who are in America illegally have a responsibility -- to pay their back taxes and admit responsibility for breaking the law, pay a penalty, learn English, pass criminal background checks, and get right with the law -- or face removal -- before they can get in line and eventually earn their citizenship.

So responsibility. Accountability. Common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. I thank Secretary Napolitano for helping to lead our efforts, both on and off Capitol Hill. And I thank Senators Schumer and Graham for working with us to forge a bipartisan consensus on a framework for moving forward, and I welcome the commitment of House and Senate Democratic leaders to take action.

I’ll continue to consult with Democrats and Republicans in Congress, and I would note that 11 current Republican Senators voted to pass immigration reform four years ago. I’m hopeful that they will join with Democrats in doing so again so we can make the progress the American people deserve.

Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.

In fact, I’ve instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country.

As a nation, as a people, we can choose a different future -- a future that keeps faith with our history, with our heritage, and with the hope that America has always inspired in the hearts of people all over the world. For just as each of these 24 new citizens once cast their eyes upon our country from afar, so too, somewhere in the world today is a young boy or a young girl wondering if they, too, might someday share in America’s promise.

Don't go counting your...ahem...chickens...

Josh has a warning for those who think that the Dems are about to get trouched in the upcoming midterms:

It's easy to overstate the power of money in a political race. So long as both candidates have a threshold amount of money adequate to get a message out, it's hard for a money advantage to save a candidate who has the odds really stacked against them. But Christina Bellantoni points out that a number of the most endangered Senate Dems -- Reid, Lincoln, Specter, Boxer, et al. -- all have lots more money in the bank than their GOP rivals, even as they're struggling to do degrees in the polls. In the case of Harry Reid, for instance, something like 30 times as much as his likely rival.

Money can only do so much. And there's no way national Republicans won't at the very least adequately fund these challengers. But the disparities are great enough that it's made me rethink at least a little what I think is going to happen in these races.

The President's remarks on Wall Street Reform at Cooper Union (VIDEO)

Right down the block from my old dorm at NYU.



In case you doubt, I have vivid memories of what its like when the President comes to visit Cooper Union, as evidenced below:




What do you want to bet that that same guy was out there today?

Uhh, gee Blanche. Ya think?!?

Former Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): Empty, soulless, but not completely stupid.

I just want to know why she thought this was a good idea before the SEC Investigation was announced.

In case you need a funny explanation of the Goldman Indictment (VIDEO)

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Goldman Sachs Fraud Case - Andrew Ross Sorkin
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

CNBC: John Harwood's Interview with President Obama (VIDEO)

This are the pieces I was able to grab so far. (In the end, I think it covers the 15-20 minutes mentioned up front).

And yes, this portion of the Interview goes black about 3 minutes in.

And yes, the website posted it anyway:

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

Okay, back up and running:

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

And part three, covering Goldman stuff:

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

Are Tea Partiers Racist? ... Part 2

Don't just gauge the racism of the Tea Parties by the quality of the white people attending, judge them also by the quality of the people of color attending:

I had specifically come to this rally because it was supposed to be especially diverse. And, on the stage at least, it was. The speakers included a black doctor who bashed Democrats for crying racism, a Hispanic immigrant who said that she had never received a single government entitlement and a Vietnamese immigrant who said that the Tea Party leader was God. It felt like a bizarre spoof of a 1980s Benetton ad.

The juxtaposition was striking: an abundance of diversity on the stage and a dearth of it in the crowd, with the exception of a few minorities like the young black man who carried a sign that read “Quit calling me a racist.”

They saved the best for last, however: Alfonzo “Zo” Rachel. According to his Web site, Zo, who is black and performs skits as “Zo-bama,” allowed drugs to cost him “his graduation.” Before ripping into the president for unconstitutional behavior, he cautioned, “I don’t have the education that our president has, so if I misinterpret some things in the founding documents I kind of have an excuse.” That was the understatement of the evening.

I found the imagery surreal and a bit sad: the minorities trying desperately to prove that they were “one of the good ones”; the organizers trying desperately to resolve any racial guilt among the crowd. The message was clear: How could we be intolerant if these multicolored faces feel the same way we do?

It was a farce. This Tea Party wanted to project a mainstream image of a group that is anything but. A New York Times/CBS News poll released on Wednesday found that only 1 percent of Tea Party supporters are black and only 1 percent are Hispanic. It’s almost all white.

And even when compared to other whites, their views are extreme and marginal. For instance, white Tea Party supporters are twice as likely as white independents and eight times as likely as white Democrats to believe that Barack Obama was born in another country.

Furthermore, they were more than eight times as likely as white independents and six times as likely as white Democrats to think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites.

Thursday night I saw a political minstrel show devised for the entertainment of those on the rim of obliviousness and for those engaged in the subterfuge of intolerance. I was not amused.

Here we go again...

Paul Krugman remains a brilliant Economist. He remains a dreadful strategist.

The Fireside chat for April 17, 2010 (VIDEO)

The strongest consumer protections ever. Bringing transparency to financial dealings. Closing loopholes to stop recklessness and irresponsibility. Holding Wall Street accountable and giving shareholders new power in the financial system. President Obama lays out what Wall Street Reform is about, and questions whether opposition from the Senate Republican Leader might have something to do with his recent meeting with Wall Street executives.

A Bold New Course for NASA (VIDEO)

A conspicuous shout-out to Buzz Aldrin. I wonder why.

Sen. Chris Dodd: "My patience is at an end..." II (VIDEO)

Ted Kennedy pays a spiritual visit to the Upper Chamber:

Puppets... (VIDEO)

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

The FinReg Offensive has begun (VIDEO)

In addition to Chris Dodd this afternoon...



And, after the meeting:

Sen. Chris Dodd: "My patience is at an end..." (VIDEO)

Bring it, Chris. Bring it!!

Andrew Breitbart is a liar...again.

Media Matter's Eric Boehlert proves that Andrew Breitbart is a lying sack of @#$%.

"Why can't we have a better Press Corps..." II

Andrew takes time out of his day to vaporize Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, and deservedly so.

DeLong: "Why can't we have a better Press Corps..."

Nothing makes me happier than watching (reading) educated professionals rip on the Press Corps.

The Fireside chat for April 10, 2010 (VIDEO)

With April 15th approaching, the President discusses several of the tax breaks for middle class families he has signed into law. Find out more about the Making Work Pay tax credit, breaks for first-time homebuyers, rewards for making your home more energy efficient and more through the Tax Savings Tool at WhiteHouse.gov.

Julian Bond destroys Gov. Bob McDonnell (VIDEO)

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

Why not have a commemoration of Civil War Month, in which you talk about the valor, the honor of soldiers on both sides of the army?

Surely, the Union Soldiers were just as courageous, just as valorous, just as honorable as those who fought for the other side. Surely, they loved their families and homes and defended with the same compassion and interest.

But somehow or another, this blind allegiance to one side—in fact, to the losing side—to the only side bearing a flag which fought the United States and was defeated, but which is regularly displayed all over the United States. We don‘t see Japanese flags, German flags or the other flags of nations we‘ve fought and beat displayed around on the backs of trucks, on bumper stickers, but we see this flag, the battle flag of the Confederacy.

And, as I say, the NAACP, and I think many, many others, think it is time it stopped.

The President's all-so brief remarks at the White House Easter Prayer Breakfast (VIDEO)

The President also took a moment to express our collective condolences for those who died in the West Virginia Mine Explosion.

In regards to our Nuclear Force Posture...

I read Fred Kaplan at Slate all the time. I depend on Thomas Ricks for the whole picture: getting down into the details of why the Surge worked (the subject of his book, The Gamble), how the Israeli Army had to cancel a planned operation and the bizarre reason why, the possibility of Iraq falling apart in the near term and why we might need to stay longer (which I respectfully disagree with). In effect, I depend on him to make it complicated. I depend on Fred Kaplan to keep it simple. Fred usually takes the Military headline of the day, and breaks it down to be understood by any civilian.

He does it today with Obama's change of our Nuclear Force Doctrine:

The Pentagon released its Nuclear Posture Review today, and those seeking clarity from the major newspapers must have come away more confused than ever.

The New York Times, in a front-page preview of the report headlined "Obama to Limit Scenarios to Use Nuclear Weapon," called the president's new strategy "a sharp shift from those of his predecessors."

Yet the Wall Street Journal, titling its story "U.S. Keeps First-Strike Strategy," shrugged off the report as "a status-quo document" that makes "only modest changes."

Both stories exaggerate. The actual 49-page report is neither dramatic nor ho-hum. In a formal statement this morning, President Barack Obama said it takes "specific and concrete steps" that "reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national-security strategy."

That's the most that can be said for it, but that's hardly trivial.

Disarmament activists had hoped for more. But, like the single-payer advocates in the health care debate, they were fooling themselves if they expected it.

The big issue—a matter of suspense in arms-control circles—was whether the document would declare that deterring a nuclear attack is the "sole" purpose of nuclear weapons or merely their "primary" purpose.

If it was the "sole" purpose, that would mean the president was declaring that the United States would never use or threaten to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack on U.S. or allied territory. It would signal a "no-first-use" policy.

If it was merely the "primary" purpose, that would mean the United States might use nukes in other circumstances, for instance in response to a chemical or biological attack or to a large-scale conventional invasion of an ally. We would, in other words, reserve the right to fire nuclear weapons first—as we have been doing, and declaring, since the atomic age began.

Obama's strategy carves out a novel, and very intriguing, chunk of middle ground. It rejects "no-first-use," noting that the United States is "not prepared at the present time to adopt a universal policy that deterring nuclear attack is the sole purpose of nuclear weapons."

However, it does declare that the United States will not fire nuclear weapons first at any country that has signed, and is in compliance with, the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The distinction may seem semantic, but in fact it's substantial. Throughout the Cold War and in the two decades since, presidents have always maintained a strategic ambiguity about when and whether they might use nuclear weapons. The commonly invoked phrase has been that "all options are on the table," sometimes with eyebrows raised while saying "all."

Obama is now saying that in conflicts with countries that don't have nuclear weapons and aren't cheating on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, all options are not on the table. We don't need to brandish, much less use, our nukes. We can launch sufficiently devastating attacks with conventional weapons and defend ourselves against whatever those countries might throw against us.

This declaration has three tangible effects. First, the nuclear war-planners at U.S. Strategic Command are, in effect, ordered to stop looking for targets in treaty-compliant countries—and to stop listing "requirements" for more nuclear weapons to hit those targets.

Second, it provides another incentive for countries—even unfriendly countries—not to develop nuclear weapons (if they believe the U.S. declaration, anyway).

Third, it further isolates those countries that are in violation of the NPT—which is to say, Iran and North Korea.

UPDATE: 4:58pm, Pacific: In case you're wondering, righties. He's another key graph:

...officials agreed that there were strategic reasons for preserving the first-use option under some circumstances against some potential foes. Second, Robert Einhorn, undersecretary of state for nuclear security, added, in the same phone conference, that several allies in Asia and Europe—who were consulted throughout the drafting process—said that they would find a no-first-use policy "very unsettling." The Cold War concept of the "nuclear umbrella"—in which the United States guarantees an ally's security by threatening to use nuclear weapons in its defense—is still alive.

The President fares far better in Basketball than in Baseball... (VIDEO)

From Saturday's Half-time show. The President starts off ice cold, then heats up...

It was high and outside... (VIDEO)

...if you're Andre the Giant.