O'Malley appeared at a Washington fundraiser on Tuesday for Sen. Shaheen of NH, and will be back for a fundraiser for Senate candidate Bruce Braley of Iowa on June 12:

link

Sheesh, O'Malley.  You really do like being obvious about it, don't you? 

That column also notes that O'Malley raised more $ for Obama's reelection campaign last year than any other sitting Democratic officeholder.

The White House is now distancing itself from DoJ's actions here, saying that they hope there isn't a prosecution:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/white-house-says-justice-dept-should-not-threaten-criminal-action-in-leak-cases/

The White House said on Tuesday that it did not think the Justice Department should threaten criminal action against journalists who report on sensitive national security matters, distancing itself from a recent case in which a television correspondent was targeted as a possible “co-conspirator” in a leak investigation.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said he discussed the situation with President Obama after reports that James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, was described in criminal terms in an affidavit involving a 2009 article about North Korea posted on the network’s Web site.

“I can’t comment on the specifics of any ongoing criminal matter,” Mr. Carney told reporters. “But if you’re asking me whether the president believes that journalists should be prosecuted for doing their jobs, the answer is no.”

Guys, you know he isn't going to volunteer or anything. That would interfere with nap time!

Inks did receive death points for something posted in the Update thread on at least one recent occasion I can recall.  However, few of his posts there get reported.  Few posts in the Update thread get reported, full stop.  I don't think Badger or Mikado read it religiously.  If you actually think there's stuff being posted there that crosses the line (from Inks or anyone else), and want a mod to do something about it, then report it.

[TL;DR]

TL;DR If this becomes an actual talking point I've lost faith in humanity. The guy actively collaborated with someone to break the law just so he could reveal to the entire world that the United States had absolutely no idea where North Korea's missiles were at- and only a few days before the UN Security Council passed a condemnatory resolution against North Korea that everyone knew would make Kim Jong Il get all pissy!

I think it's extremely problematic if they actually end up prosecuting him for that.  "Actively collaborated with someone to break the law"?  That's what every national security reporter does!  People leak classified information, which is illegal to leak, and reporters then print the information.  Yes, that means that the reporters are complicit in law breaking, but historically the DoJ has prosecuted the actual leaker, not the journalist who printed the info, no?

If they start prosecuting journalists for this kind of thing, that is, simply for soliciting classified information, even in a case like this where the journalist showed poor judgment and printed the story for "bad" reasons, won't it have a chilling effect on any future reporting on national security issues?

From Fred Kaplan's column on this:

link

It’s one thing to go after officials who leak classified information to the press. The Obama administration has gone after more of them than all previous administrations combined. Nonetheless, officials with security clearances sign a contract pledging not to share material with the outside world—and they know they could face criminal penalties if they do. (Daniel Ellsberg figured he might go to prison for leaking the Pentagon Papers and was willing to make the sacrifice.)

However, it’s something else entirely to go after a reporter who receives the leak. That’s what federal prosecutors are doing to James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News. And they’re going after him not as a witness to a crime—nor as a pressure tactic to get him to give up his source (in this case, the source has already been caught)—but rather, in the words of a Justice Department affidavit, as “an aider, an abettor, and/or a co-conspirator”: in short, as someone who might be indicted under the Espionage Act.

This has never happened in this country. (Even in the Pentagon Papers case, several newspapers were served injunctions not to publish stories, but no reporter or editor was ever investigated, much less tried, as a co-conspirator.) If the prosecutors go through with their threat, the entire enterprise of national security journalism—which inherently involves uncovering secrets, to some degree—will be in jeopardy.

Username reminds me oft the end of this ad, when Jimmy MacMillan says "Americans...America...Americans...America":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSgyHXKO8YE

Since Scott is doing his best Herr Inks impression.

Inks, your death point for personal attack hypocrisy will be exposed.

Snowy is, of course, a FF

i strongly encourage everyone from now on to report inks' abusive, condescending and boorish posts towards bushie.

You're welcome to do so.  However, just to set the record straight on the alleged hypocrisy, Inks hasn't given out any death points in weeks, if not months.  Badger and Mikado are doing all the modding in Forum Community now, and they're the only ones who've given out any infraction points here for the last several weeks.

The Conversation (1974)

Possibly the most seventies film ever. And I mean that (mostly) in a good way.

Yeah, that's a good one.  I like how Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas used all the same actors in their 1970s movies.  Seeing Harrison Ford pre-Star Wars is always a hoot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-LDPN351EM

I posted on this topic on the 2016 board, in the context of the recent 2016 polling.  There's been a big shift in the 2000s, especially from 2004 to 2008, in terms of the polarization between young and old:



The early general election polling for 2016 shows the age polarization decreasing somewhat, with many polls showing Clinton doing worse among the 30-45 age group than among 65+, for example.  This suggests to me that some of the age polarization in 2008 and 2012 may have come from the Democratic nominee being a black.  In 2016, it's possible that we'll see something of a reversion, a bit closer to 2004 levels of age polarization.

But like... how is the chart interpreted?  What are all the red lines?

It's just a silly gimmick that they used to use for the tech specs on Transformers.  On the back of the box for each toy, you'd have the tech specs, but they were hard to read without the use of this red filter that came with the toy.  The red lines are just noise to make it harder to read without the filter.  The "real" line that you care about is the purple line.  You buy the toy, you take out the red filter and use it to read the tech specs, as if it's some kind of secret information or something.  It all makes perfect sense if you're 7 years old.

Perry seems increasingly interested, but given the competition and last year's self-nuke don't see him getting far.

It would be an interesting complication for Cruz's presidential ambitions though.

Paul donates $10,000 to the NH GOP:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/20/first-on-cnn-rand-paul-donates-10000-to-new-hampshire-gop/

Schweitzer has a new job:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/05/20/schweitzer-named-chairman-of-mining-company/

Former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer (D), who Democrats have said is likely to run for that state’s open Senate seat, has nonetheless taken a new job as chairman of the board of the Stillwater Mining Company.

The Montana-based company announced Schweitzer’s new job Monday. Less than three weeks ago, he and three others were elected to the company’s board after a New York hedge fund grew tired of the company’s management.

Shockwave:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ItfWY3xMQ

What on earth is that chart?

Shockwave's tech specs.

Also, Shockwave reminds me of my favorite cover art for the G1 comic book:

Either 1 or 5.

Doubtful.  I don't think SSM is going to be repealed in states that already have it any time soon.

Walker downplaying the significance of his trip to Iowa (of course he kind of has to):

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20130519/OSH0101/305190148/Walker-downplays-visit-Iowa?gcheck=1

“Yeah, I’m going to Iowa, but I get invited to other states that have nothing to do with presidential politics,” Walker recently told reporters. “(Iowa Gov.) Terry Brandstad is a good friend and asked me to come on over. I said, ‘We’ll do that.’ I do other surrounding states. It’s an easy trip, to still put a good day’s work in and get over to Iowa.”

Walker may be shrugging off chatter about 2016, but political observers see plenty of signs that he is considering a run for president after his 2014 re-election campaign is over. He’s working on a book about his life, tentatively titled “Unintimidated: A Governor’s Story and a Nation’s Challenge.” And Walker readily admits he’s traveling around the country for high-profile fundraisers and other conservative gatherings, from New Orleans to Iowa, Washington, D.C., to California.

“We used to call this period ‘testing the waters.’ I think that’s what he’s doing,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “He can’t be explicit yet. But I think he’ll run.”

http://articles.philly.com/2013-05-19/news/39371725_1_mark-zuckerberg-newark-schools-zuckerberg-and-christie

Gov. Christie has collected $289,150 from those involved in California's technology industry, an Inquirer analysis of his campaign records shows. That's a remarkable figure for a Republican running for reelection in a state 3,000 miles away - especially coming from a constituency that typically favors Democrats.

A cofounder of PayPal and the founder of DropBox. The CEO of LinkedIn and the CFO of Yahoo. Top vice presidents at eBay and Microsoft. Christie's donor list is a who's who of the most important, deep-pocketed people of the Internet, indicating that he is tapping a vein of wealth to help him in his reelection bid this year and, possibly, in a 2016 presidential run.

Christie's Facebook friend, Mark Zuckerberg, the billionaire who founded the world's leading social network, is the lead supporter. The Inquirer analysis of donors, which includes tech executives, investors, and their immediate relatives, showed that nearly $80,000 came from those affiliated with Facebook.

Much of that haul likely came at a Christie fund-raiser that Zuckerberg held at his Palo Alto house in February, marking the billionaire's first official foray into politics. One hundred people showed up - with 25 more left at the door on a waiting list.

The article goes on to speculate that it really may just be Christie's personal friendship with Zuckerberg that's driving all the Silicon Valley $:

"They may be giving because Mark Zuckerberg said, 'Come to my house and give money,' and they want to do business with [Zuckerberg] in the future," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in campaign finance.

Shockwave:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-ItfWY3xMQ

Santorum is returning to Iowa yet again, following the cancellation of his planned trip in April that he had to skip out on for health reasons.  In August, he'll "be the keynote speaker at the Lyon County GOP's fundraising dinner":

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130518/NEWS09/130518003/Possible-2016-GOP-presidential-candidate-Rick-Santorum-return-Iowa?nclick_check=1

[If it's not Hillary, it's Biden. If it's not Biden, it's Cuomo.]

The Democrats seem to have clear frontrunners. If it's not Hillary, it's Biden. If it's not Biden, it's Cuomo. It could easily end up being someone else, but it's likely to be a campaign defined by whoever leads the polls in March 2015.

I disagree with the bolded part.  Cuomo might be "frontrunner by default" if Clinton doesn't run, but he'd be an incredibly weak frontrunner.  Weaker than Rubio on the GOP side, for example.  Both Cuomo and (especially) Biden are paper tigers, who I could easily see crumbling once other candidates become better known.

Cuomo still has enormous fundraising potential though, which is the main reason why I'd crown him "frontrunner by default" in a Clinton-less race.  But $ isn't everything.

Hillary wouldn't have her not-so-Fab 4 of Penn/Wolfson/Solis Doyle/Tanden if she ran.

The most interesting line from that article is this:

[Hillary Clinton] refuses to acknowledge the 2016 speculation but has privately suggested that the obstacles to running aren’t exactly insurmountable. “She did tell me once that she was really thinking about Chelsea and [son-in-law] Marc,” said Susie Tompkins Buell, a Democratic donor and friend of Clinton, “and how she didn’t want to disrupt their lives.”

[The 50% line is somewhere around Gingrich and Palin.]

As a counterpart to the OP, look at what I was predicting in the summer of 2010 about who the 2012 candidates would be:

Here's my ranking of everyone's chances of running, from most likely to least likely:

Pawlenty
Romney
Santorum
Johnson
Gingrich
Palin
Pataki
Barbour
Paul
Huckabee
Thune
Daniels
Pence

At least, that's everyone worth mentioning.  The 50% line is somewhere around Gingrich and Palin.  Everyone above that line is >50% likely to run.  Everyone below it is somewhere between about 5% and 50% likely to run.  Of course, there will also be a few surprise candidates, but I have no idea who they are yet.

Not bad.  All of the top 5 people on my list did end up running.  The only person who I had below 50% likely to run who did end up running was Paul.  Of course, I didn't predict other candidates, like Bachmann, Huntsman, and Perry, but like I said, there are always going to be surprise candidates like that who end up running, who you can't predict very easily that far in advance.

Of course, this means that we might have a decent idea of who the candidates will be as of about a year from now.  We'll just have to wait and see whether it's the same crop of people who we're speculating about today.

[95%+ of people use it that way]

It does bother me a tad bit. But can we really say its the incorrect way when 95%+ of people use it that way?

Not in my experience.  You need to stop hanging out with dumbs.

[Numerous segments of Iraq's body politic -- Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia -- are exasperated over the government's inability to address political or economic inequities, and are talking seriously about partition.]

Things really aren't going very well.  WaPo has a story titled "Sectarianism in Iraq stoked by Syrian war":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/sectarianism-in-iraq-stoked-by-syrian-war/2013/05/16/b74161da-bc98-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html

The prospect of a regional power shift driven by the bloody civil war next door, where a mostly Sunni rebel movement is struggling to topple the Shiite-dominated regime, has emboldened Iraq’s Sunni minority to challenge its own Shiite government and amplified fears within Maliki’s administration that Iraq may soon be swept up in a spillover war.

Also:

link

Negative indicators abound: Armed civilian militias are reactivating, tit-for-tat bombings are targeting Sunni and Shiite mosques, and some Iraqi military forces are breaking down into ethnic-sectarian components or suffering from chronic absenteeism. Numerous segments of Iraq's body politic -- Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia -- are exasperated over the government's inability to address political or economic inequities, and are talking seriously about partition.
.
.
.
Starting in 2008, Maliki re-centralized power, leaning on an increasingly narrow circle of Shia opponents of the previous dictatorship. And like all successful revolutionaries, this clique is paranoid about counterrevolution and has set about rebuilding a version of the authoritarian system it sought for decades to overthrow. Maliki's inner circle dominates the selection of military commanders down to brigade level, controls the federal court, and has seized control of the central bank. The executive branch is rapidly eclipsing all checks and balances that were put in place to guarantee a new autocracy did not emerge.

Patrick insists that he wouldn't leave his job as MA governor before his term is up in January 2015, so he won't accept any Cabinet offer from Obama if it means leaving early (the current speculation is that Holder will likely leave within the next year, and Patrick would be a contender to replace him):

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/05/governor_dismisses_talk_hes_dc_bound

What's interesting about that story is the amount of attention devoted to discussion of how a Cabinet selection would impact Patrick's presidential ambitions.....which kind of assumes that he has presidential ambitions.....which isn't as obvious anymore, since he hasn't done anything to indicate interest in the last six months or so.

*bump*

I'd say....

Catholic = 43% probability
Mormon = 30% probability (this is mostly because of the remaining probability that Romney pulls it out next month)
Mainline Protestant = 20% probability (the biggest contributor here being Hillary Clinton)
Evangelical = 5% probability
something else = 2% probability

I feel like Evangelical should be higher, but I'm struggling to think of any Evangelical 2016 candidates who could plausibly win.  None of the likely Democratic candidates are Evangelicals, are they?  On the GOP side, the potential 2016ers who are Evangelical would be.....who?  Pence, Perry, Thune, Walker?  I think there's an outside chance of Cruz running, and he's an Evangelical, isn't he?  In any case, the collective probability of all of those guys being the next president isn't very great.

*bump*

Well, Romney lost, and Hillary Clinton's public signals on whether she's going to run have changed quite a bit since October, so she definitely looks more likely to run now.  So it's largely between Mainline Protestant and Catholic, with Clinton being being the main Mainline Protestant and Catholic being most of the rest of the field.

Walker's the most likely Evangelical now.

Maybe:

Catholic = 53% probability
Mainline Protestant = 40% probability
Evangelical = 5% probability
something else = 2% probability