Greg Sargent gets a White House reaction to Joe Biden's comments on Israel bombing Iran. and then runs well, an incorrect headline and story imo. First the WH reaction:

I asked White House spokesperson Tommy Vietor whether Biden was articulating the administration’s official position, and he emailed “The Vice President refused to engage hypotheticals, and he made clear that our policy has not changed. Our friends and allies, including Israel, know that the President believes that now is the time to explore direct diplomatic options, as with the P5+1.”

Of course this is nonsense. Biden did engage a hypothetical. The rest of the answer is contrary to what Biden said. And thus, Sargent's description of the WH response is also rather nonsensical:

I thought this post from Digby might be of interest:

Is it just me or were Joe Biden's comments on Stephanpoulos this morning somewhat ... uhm ... startling?

Plunging squarely into one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. suggested on Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israeli military action aimed at the Iranian nuclear program. . . .

What was funny to me was Biden's explanation - "Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else . . ." While Digby rightly wonders if Biden's, um timing, given what' going on Iran, is um, helpful, my thought is about Obama's supposed line in the sand on Israeli settlements on the West Bank. I'm not one to rush into the I/P controversy, and it is not my intention to do so here. But here's a question - is Joe Biden really up to the job? He is a mistake machine.

Speaking for me only

I have been quite critical of President Obama, but I listened to much of his press conference today and I liked his performance very much (Partial transcript here.) Of what I heard, there was almost nothing he said nor in the way he said it that I can find fault with. I've always said that what President Obama has said is almost exactly in line with my own views.

More . . .

Riffing off of Ed Kilgore, Digby writes:

[I]f Obama still wants to emulate the great "game changer" himself, Ronnie Reagan, that is exactly what he would do. Reagan used his personal popularity to get rank and file Democrats to support his policies. And he rhetorically always framed his policies as the common sense policies of the everyman out in the country, and then they backed it up with polling that showed that the people trusted him.

Obama can pass health care with Democrats and then legitimately call it bipartisan by citing public support. But he has to not care that David Broder and David Brooks have a hissy fit over it. They do not speak for Americans; they don't even speak for Republicans on this one. This is what the bully pulpit is all about. He can take his case directly to the people and if he backs a real plan, with real teeth, he can get it passed, I don't have any doubts. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Let me note that Reagan learned the trick from FDR. I repeat my refrain, if real health care reform does not happen, it will be because President Barack Obama failed, not Ben Nelson or Max Baucus. That is how history will remember it and how the voters will think about it in 2012. Maybe that will incentivize Rahmbo.

Speaking for me only

In his dissent in Gross v. FBL Financial Services (PDF), where the SCOTUS again engaged in an act of brazen extreme right wing judicial activism, Justice Stevens wrote:

The Court asks whether a mixed-motives instruction is ever appropriate in an ADEA case. As it acknowledges, this was not the question we granted certiorari to decide. . . . In the usual course, this Court would not entertain such a request raised only in a merits brief . . . Yet the Court is unconcerned that the question it chooses to answer has not been briefed by the parties or interested amici curiae. Its failure to consider the views of the United States, which represents the agency charged with administering the ADEA, is especially irresponsible. . . . I disagree not only with the Court’s interpretation of the statute, but also with its decision to engage in unnecessary lawmaking.

(Emphasis supplied.) Would the intervention of the Obama Justice Department really have mattered? [My hyperbole aside, as Steve M. points out, the Obama DOJ almost certainly would have argued Stevens' view (PDF). But the Roberts Court would not have cared.] After all, we have seen that the Obama DOJ has a penchant for adopting the views of the Bush DOJ. As Glenn Greenwald points out, the Obama Justice Department adopted the Bush Administration position in the DNA case (as it has in the state secrets cases):

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children. For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

More on President Obama's planned executive order on extending benefits to same sex partners of federal employees: It excludes most health care benefits. Via Politico:[More...]

Transparency you can believe in:

The Obama administration is looking at using an executive order to block the release of photos documenting the abuse of U.S. military detainees, said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. "I have reason to believe they are looking at that as a way to resolve this situation," Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters Tuesday.

Funny, President Obama refuses to use an Executive Order to stop military discharges of gay and lesbian soldiers.

Speaking for me only

President Obama enjoyed great support from trial lawyers in his presidential campaign. Even though, as I wrote here, he voted for a very bad tort reform bill.

So no one should be suprised he's now looking at reining in medical malpractice suits as a way to cut health costs. It's another one of his "middle ground" with Republican stances.

In closed-door talks, Mr. Obama has been making the case that reducing malpractice lawsuits — a goal of many doctors and Republicans — can help drive down health care costs, and should be considered as part of any health care overhaul, according to lawmakers of both parties, as well as A.M.A. officials.

He's not addressing capping lawsuit awards...at least not yet. [More...]

These conclusions by [Bush CIA] Director Hayden . . . have been reinforced by an additional review – following the panel decision in this case – at the highest levels of the [Obama]Department of Justice. - Obama DOJ Brief

Recent days have been filled with apologists for the Obama Justice Department's brief in the California DOMA case. Expect new defenses now for the Obama DOJ brief seeking en banc rehearing (PDF) of the 9th Circuit's Jeppesen state secrets decision (PDF). In my view, what is most disturbing about the Obama DOJ's brief is not that it adopts in toto the radical Bush Administration position on the state secrets doctrine (bad enough), it is its blatant misleading description of what the Jeppesen panel decided. The Obama DOJ writes:

The National Journal Weekly Bloggers Poll asked:

Politically, how important is it to President Obama that health care reform be bipartisan?

My answer:

"Bipartisan" health care reform would not be health care reform. It is important that health care reform not be "bipartisan."

What do you think? Take the poll. Speaking for me only

WaPo:

The Obama administration objected yesterday to the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons, arguing to a federal judge that doing so would endanger national security and benefit al-Qaeda's recruitment efforts.

. . . Although Panetta's statement is in keeping with his previous opposition to the disclosure of other information about the CIA's interrogation policies and practices during George W. Bush's presidency, it represents a new assertion by the Obama administration that the CIA should be allowed to keep such information secret. Bush's critics have long hoped that disclosure would pinpoint responsibility for actions they contend were abusive or illegal.

I guess that whole Brandeis sunshine/disinfectant thing is not operative in the Obama Administration. But pols are pols . . . See also Greenwald.

Speaking for me only

Glenn Greenwald writes:

Earlier this week, I noted that the Senate had passed -- with Obama's support -- a pernicious amendment to the spending supplemental bill, jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, that empowers Obama and the Pentagon, at their sole discretion, to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States."

That is bad enough. This is so much worse: