Personally, I think Specter would have had a better chance to win the Pennsylvania Senate race than Joe Sestak, and I am positive Sestak is going to disappoint in terms of policy (he'll be a lot less progressive than the creative class thinks), but I have to tip my hat to the political operation running the Sestak campaign. Earlier I wrote about how Sestak is trying to make the campaign sort of a Bill Clinton v. George Bush referendum. Another nice feature of the Sestak campaign is to constantly refer to Toomey as "Congressman" Toomey (though Toomey is no longer in the Congress.) Sestak spends a lot of time talking about his naval career, instead of his time in Congress. This is smart politics. Via digby, Sestak's latest ad (funded by the DSCC) hits on Toomey's Wall Street career:

In a tough political environment for Dems and incumbents, Sestak's team is running a shrewd race. I thought he would get wiped out. But, against all odds, he is in the hunt. Nice campaign.

Speaking for me only

Good stuff from the President:

I'll be out running errands today. Not too exciting, but they have to get done.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

No one knows what the jury is thinking, but in the court of public opinion, according to The New York Times, the tide is turning in favor of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

It's easy to dismiss the Times' analysis since it is based on an unscientific sampling of random persons who didn't hear the evidence. Less easy to dismiss: John Bohrer, a reporter for Esquire who did attend the trial, and who was asked by the magazine at the end of the trial to write an article with his impressions as if he had been one of the jurors, wrote that as a juror, he would have acquitted both defendants. His reasoning is much the same as those interviewed in the Times article. [More...]

President Obama today signed into law the $600 million bill enhancing law enforcement and surveillance along the Mexico border.

Obama did this backwards. Republicans aren't likely to support comprehensive immigration reform, particularly a path to legalization, because he caved on border security. As I've opined before, he should told the Republicans, "Hey, you want money for border security, then pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill and the Dream Act and then we'll talk."

This is another example of Obama's tendency to compromise core Democratic principles in his eternal quest for bi-partisanship. He's the President, the Dems still hold a majority in Congress. He should know when it comes to power, you either use it or lose it.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said, weighing in for the first time on a controversy that has riven New York City and the nation.

"That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

Good for him for taking a stand, and the right one.

Carol Rosenberg of McClatchy has the latest on the abrupt cessation of the military commission proceeding against child soldier Omar Khadr due to his lawyer's collapse in court yesterday.

Lt. Col. Jackson, who had gall bladder surgery six weeks ago, is suffering from complications from the surgery. He is being airlifted back to the U.S. The trial has been postponed at least 30 days.

Jackson, who has been on the case for about a year, became Khadr's lone lawyer within a week of his surgery after the Toronto-born teen fired volunteer civilian attorneys Barry Coburn and Kobie Flowers from Washington D.C.

[Judge]Parrish ordered the Army defender to stay on the case, but the Pentagon Defense Office provided him no additional assistance beyond two enlisted paralegals who had already been on the case.

Open Thread.

Elise finds the Florida GOP advocating for internment camps for immigrants:

Is Florida GOP Senate candidate Marco Rubio in favor of internment camps for immigrants?

Speaking for me only

As a companion post to my look at a WSJ pundit's "It's Obama" thesis, consider this WSJ article:

Ms. Jones is part of an unmeasured, agitated mass: unemployed Americans who don't believe the Obama Administration and Congress have done enough to produce jobs. With elections coming up, their unease is especially troublesome for the Democrats, who control both chambers.

A poor economy never bodes well for incumbents. Cook Report, the nonpartisan political newsletter that tracks congressional races, estimates that 73 House seats are vulnerable—including Mr. Schauer's. This group has two things in common. Almost all (66 of 73) are held by Democrats, and most include counties that have unemployment rates exceeding the national average, according to data assembled by The Wall Street Journal.

[. . .] "The jobless are the new swing voters," says Rick Sloan, [. . .] "You can talk about deficit reduction, health-care reform—you can talk about all those things but you're talking past the jobless voters."

Robert Gibbs and Jane Hamsher can argue all they want about 'what's progressive enough,' but voters care about jobs. And the Obama Administration and Dems have simply failed on this issue. It is why they will lose the November election.

Speaking for me only

A WSJ pundit posits that voting against the Obama Agenda will save some Democrats:

Troll through the voting rolls, and you'll find an exclusive club of three House Democrats running for re-election who voted against the more controversial pieces of the Obama agenda: the $862 billion stimulus, Mr. Obama's $3.5 trillion budget, cap and trade and, of course, ObamaCare. Troll through the polls today, and you'll find a near-exclusive club of three House Democrats who are beating every electoral expectation. Were history, incumbency and the economy the main factors this fall, Idaho's Walt Minnick, Alabama's Bobby Bright and Mississippi's Gene Taylor would be packing up. That they aren't is a resounding statement on a failed Obama vision.

First, you simply can not include Gene Taylor on this list where "history and incumbency" point to a GOP victory. Gene Taylor has held his district forever. He has voted against Dem Presidents (and even Dem speakers of the House) forever.But Minnick and Bright, from two decidedly GOP districts do present evidence that in heavily GOP districts, voting and talking like a Republican will be advantageous. But the list provided by the WSJ pundit is quite selective. There were many more Dems who voted Republican than those 3. Let's take, for example, the vote on the House health care bill (it passed 220-215.) The following Dems voted against it:

Conventional wisdom says Rachel will go home tonight on Big Brother, but if she does, there will be no more drama, making the rest of the season pretty boring. Will Big Brother use the diary room sessions to subtly suggest the houseguests vote off Brendon instead?

Also: Jennifer Anniston hits back at Bill O'Reilly for criticizing her comments about single parenthood, calling them "destructive to society." What Aniston said:

Women are realizing it more and more, knowing that they don't have to settle with a man just to have that child," the actress told reporters. "Love is love and family is what is around you and who is in your immediate sphere."