Obviously, David, you've heard the President speak on a number of occasions that the President strongly believes in the right for people to gather in protest without fear or harm or violence.  Obviously there are still a lot of questions that surround the most recent election.  And I think I'll leave it at that.

From WorldPublicOpinion.org, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland:

"A sea change has occurred in Pakistani public opinion. The tactics and undemocratic bent of militant groups--in tribal areas as well as Swat--have brought widespread revulsion and turned Pakistanis against them," comments Clay Ramsay, research director. However, he adds: "It's crucial to understand that the US is resented just as much as before, despite the US having a new president."

So if the Pakistani government moves boldly against the Taliban and other militants, it could have the support of a majority of Pakistanis behind it. Yet if the Pakistani government is seen to be doing the bidding of the United States, those actions could upset many, if not most, Pakistanis:

Eighty-eight percent think it is a US goal to weaken and divide the Islamic world (78% definitely a goal). The US Predator drone attacks aimed at militant camps within the Pakistani border are rejected by 82 percent as unjustified. On the war in Afghanistan, 72 percent disapprove of the NATO mission and 79 percent want it ended now; 86 percent think most Afghans want the mission ended as well.

According to this poll, they still really don't like us, and there's been no "Obama effect." The bottom line is a pretty obvious one: getting Pakistan right is a tough task for the Obama administration. The same, of course, is true for Afghanistan--especially now that President Hamid Karzai's campaign reelection is based partly on his criticisms of the US presence in Afghanistan. (He recently accused US forces of protecting security guards who killed several Afghan security officers during a gun battle.)

But this poll does show that in Pakistan there is potential for developing pubic support for government actions that would be in sync with US aims for AfPak-land. Let's hope that Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke and others are pondering how best to take advantage of this shift in public attitudes.

Iran's popular uprising, which began after the June 12 election, may be heading for a premature ending. In many ways, the Ahmadinejad government has succeeded in transforming what was a mass movement into dispersed pockets of unrest. Whatever is now left of this mass movement is now leaderless, unorganized -- and under the risk of being hijacked by groups outside Iran in pursuit of their own political agendas.

Although successful at first, the discipline [of the opposition movement] has clearly broken down. This should be no surprise -- the movement is by now in effect leaderless. A source close to Mousavi says that the first and second circle of people around Mousavi have all been arrested or put under house arrest. Mousavi himself has limited ability to communicate with his team and his followers. The lack of leadership is visible on the streets, where demonstrators exhibit unparalleled will and courage, but lack direction and guidance.

Indeed, the lack of organization and execution is perhaps the most convincing evidence that the anti-Ahmadinejad movement is completely homegrown and void of any attempt to emulate the velvet revolutions of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. What is driving people to the streets is their sense of frustration and anger -- not a well-devised plan and training in clever nonviolent resistance techniques.

The leadership vacuum does not bode well for the movement's prospects of success, particularly when it comes to attracting those Iranian swing-voters to its side once more. And this creates openings for external meddling -- just not the kind you think.

The two are worried that outside groups--exile outfits or neocons--will try to fill this vacuum or attempt to influence the opposition, if only by tossing around rhetoric that will make it easier for the autocrats to depict the opposition as being whipped up by Iran's external enemies. If the opposition is going to keep going, they contend, it's going to have to continue to win over so-called "swing voters" in Iran. How an unorganized opposition manages to do that they don't say. But it seems to me that a regrouping is necessary and perhaps a long-term strategy has to be developed. Whether anyone is doing that is unknown--thanks to the (so far successful) crackdown of the tyrants of Tehran.

Democrats plan a July 4th ad campaign to punish House Republicans who voted against the $100-plus billion Iraq and Afghanistan war supplemental - emulating GOP attacks against John Kerry and other Dems who voted against Bush war bills.

A series of 60-second radio ads will run during drive time from July 1 through July 8, according to a script provided to POLITICO -- and they have the support-our-troops ring of GOP spots.

They'll target seven Republicans seen as vulnerable in '10, including Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Charlie Dent (R-Penn.), Jim Gerlach (R-Penn.), Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Joe Wilson (R-SC).

This will be an interesting test case, for one important political question these days is, does anyone give a damn about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

At the presidential news conference earlier this week, not a single reporter asked President Barack Obama about either war. This week there's been a series of deadly bombings in Iraq, killing about 200 people--as US forces prepare to withdraw from Iraqi cities. This horrific violence has received little media attention in the United States. And when was the last time you saw a full report on the war in Afghanistan on television? There's an important presidential campaign under way in Afghanistan. Its outcome could have a big impact on the US war effort there. Yet, it registers barely a blip on the US media landscape. (At Mother Jones, we post a daily "We're Still at War Photo of the Day.")

So can Democrats score points by whacking Republicans in Rove-ian fashion for "not supporting the troops"? Unfortunately, I don't have much time to ponder this; a report on Michael Jackson's autopsy is coming up after the next commercial.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

I was feeling sort of sorry for Mark Sanford. His emails to Maria indicate he was deeply in love with her, and, thus, he was in a difficult situation. These things happen--even to conservatives. And, yes, he was a blazing hypocrite, voting for the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and claiming that he knew the true meaning of marriage:

As Jenny and I are the parents of four little boys, we've always taught our kids that marriage was something between a man and a woman.

Still, I wondered how tough we should be on a fellow caught in these circumstances. Until I watched the video of Sanford's speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference last March.

His address was red meat for empathy-free conservatives. Sanford, taking a Palinesque view, proclaimed to the crowd of conservative activists that the United States has reached a historic moment in which the "battle line" is between "government on one side" and "liberty...on the other." In what now comes across as a poignant observation, Sanford noted that the toughest problems to contend with are "internal problems," such as "your personal life." His contention was that the United States now has a serious internal problem:

We literally do live at one of the most pivotal points in American history. Every one of our threats, or pretty much all of our threats, have been external in nature. I mean, what were the British going to do to us? Or what were the Germans going to do to? Or what were the Japanese going to do? It was always what was somebody going to do to us. But the real question of our times is, what are we going to do to us? I mean, it is a very different question, because as we all know external problems at times aren't all that difficult to deal with. Internal problems--whether in your personal life, whether in business, whether in government--are the real problems that are hard to get your arms around. And what we have right now is a problem of internal. [sic] And the question is, what do we do about it?

Sanford defined this internal problem as too many Americans depending on government for guidance and assistance. He pointed to the victims of the Hurricane Katrina tragedy and asked, "Did you see people who saw themselves as lions or gazelles?" His point: too many of the Louisianan residents clobbered by Katrina and the failure of the levies viewed themselves as needy gazelles, not strong and independent lions, and actually expected government to help them. For Sanford, this sums up the "internal problem": Americans have become weak and unable to assist themselves because government has become too big.

His ideology-driven lack of sympathy for these people was not charming. After viewing this video, I lost any empathy I might have had for Sanford. If he's going to judge others so harshly on the basis of what he considers to be their weaknesses, then he deserves similar treatment. Yes, "internal problems" in one's personal life are hard to handle, but try dealing with 20 feet of water on your block.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.

Milbank accurately notes that the White House gave Pitney a strong indication that he would be called on at the press conference. That does sound as if the White House was planting a question. And here's how Milbank describes what happened:

Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show."

A bad message to Iran? Oh my. But White House aides, having noticed that Pitney has been live-blogging the Iranian crisis, had asked him if he would solicit a question from Iranians for Obama. This was not exactly the same thing as arranging for a specific question--or even a sympathetic one. Obama didn't know what Pitney would ask, and Ptiney's query, as it turned out, was a tough one. Obama didn't really answer it:

PITNEY: We solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country. What we know is that a sizeable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an isolated instance -- a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so ultimately the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that's why I've been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

Obama dodged. He did not state under what conditions he would accept an Ahmadinejad victory, and he did not say whether engaging with Ahmadinejad at some point would be a betrayal of the Iranian opposition. I bet that Iranian was disappointed--if he was able to learn of Obama's response.

Granted, there was something artificial about all this. The White House spurred Pitney to ask a specific sort of question and essentially told him he'd be called on. But, then, there is something artificial about the entire enterprise of presidential press conferences.

Before a press conference begins, the White House decides on the dozen or so reporters the president will call on. The rest of us need not be there at all. And while the White House does not tell journalists they are on this golden list, it's fair to assume that the wire service reporters and the major television network correspondents will be chosen. So about half of the reporters on the list, more or less, have advance notice every time the president holds a news conference. And this list isn't very long, given that Obama usually uses a question as an opportunity to recite, at length, his talking points (as eloquent as they are) on the matter at hand.

At presidential press conferences, there ought to be more spontaneity, more to and fro, and, more important, more questions from a wider range of questioners. (Spin a wheel?) That's the issue, not Nico-gate.
******
By the way, I'm filling in for blogger Kevin Drum for a few days. Feel free to check out my postings on Jake Tapper and Mick Jagger and climate change.

You can follow my posts and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

On a day when the politerati focused on President Barack Obama's press conference (Iran, health care, Iran, health care, the economy, smoking, Iran), Chris Matthews, Richard Wolffe, and I went off-topic to discuss whether Michelle Obama can help her husband sell the health care bill now under construction in Congress. We then moved on to the "disappearance" of GOP South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford.

You can follow my postings and media appearances on Twitter.

It's been a busy day or two for me. I've been blogging and Twittering much about Iran, and a Twitterer in Iran informs me that this blog and the Mother Jones website have been blocked in Iran by the autocrats of Tehran. It's an honor.

And last night, I trekked through woods, brambles, and poison ivy to reach the site of the tragic DC metro crash, which was just a mile or so from my house. I'm obsessive about finding alternative routes to avoid traffic. Thus, I was familiar with side streets that allowed one to get close to the site. Then I had to bushwhack my way to the tracks. I followed a culvert next to the railroad fence for about a quarter of a mile and found a small opening. I crawled through and walked along the gravel, right up to the crash. I snapped several iPhone photos before a cop approached and ordered me to leave. "It's a crime scene," he shouted, and he threatened to confiscate my phone. I quickly scurried up a steep hill next to the New Hampshire Avenue bridge--took a few more photos--and emerged in a cordoned-off area. I was surrounded by police officers and rescue workers. I didn't say anything, kept my head down, and quickly walked off. Here are the pics., several of which were featured on Good Morning America this AM. (A producer found them on Twitter and asked me for permission to use them.) And for a good sum-up of questions raised by the crash, check out JIm Ridgeway's take here.

Now back to pondering queries worthy of a president, just in case.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by here.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

Also, at Thursday's White House press briefing, I asked press secretary Robert Gibbs about an earlier McCain tweet, in which the senator again urged Obama to declare an explicit alliance with the Iranian opposition. Here's the exchange:

Q: Thanks, Robert. A question about Iran again. Earlier today, a few hours ago, John McCain, on his Twitter feed, said -- and it's short, as it has to be -- "Mass peaceful demonstrations in Iran today; let's support them and stand up for democracy and freedom!"

MR. GIBBS: Was it that vociferous or are you --

Q : "The President and his administration should do the same." Do you think that it is helpful, or not helpful, for members of Congress to be making declarations like this, and putting pressure on the White House to do and say more?

MR. GIBBS: Again, I'm not going to get involved into commenting on the motivations that other members may have. I know some people agree with what Senator McCain said; some people agree with what other Republicans have said that's very much like the President's position. The President strongly believes that we should and have spoken out to ensure that demonstrators have the universal right and principle to demonstrate without fear of harm. But at the same time, we have to respect their sovereignty.

Gibbs did not use the opportunity to call McCain "bonkers" or anything else. But with a crunch time coming in Iran, we can expect McCain and other Rs to turn up the rhetoric and try to intensify the pressure on Obama. That might be good politics for them, but it's not likely to help the Iranian opposition.

I'm fortunate to be part of a listserv for experts around the world on the Middle East and Near East. Some are in Iran. Many have contacts--including friends and family--within Iraq. These listserv participants have been providing a good flow of news and views on what's transpiring in Iran. On Wednesday night, one member in Iran provided this "Tehran Update":

DEMONSTARTIONS INSPIRING. The discipline and self-control of demonstrators over the last several days, even after fatal violence on June 15th, was inspiring to watch and to be in! When an AN supporter appeared, they were confronted not with boos or hisses, but with a silent sea of hands in the air with the v for victory sign. I was proud to be there. One of the reformist clerics just before his arrest said "I have only just now realized how far behind our supporters we actually are." Of course the pro-electoral recount side are outflanked organizationally: without an organization or means of communication or accessible leaders it's not clear how much further the demonstrations can go. No objectives can be discussed or developed, and no planning can be coordinated. One cannot even tell if communications - such as the printed flyers yesterday, apparently from Mousavi, telling people NOT to demonstrate - are genuine or not. But then consider what is being achieved despite all these disadvantages! And it has become clear that this election struggle can have very wide implications for the entire political system.

RIOTS. Last night (night of June 17th) there was pitched battle in Gandhi street between ordinary youth on the one hand coming off the peaceful demonstration around Vanak Square and Basiji's on motorcycles on the other. The latter were smashing car windows and attacking people. It was good thing I was wearing sneakers! I was able to drive home after midnight when things had calmed down. There was an ambulance near Vanak Sq. apparently loading three people with gunshot wounds. There were hundreds of riot police sitting and standing in Vanak Sq. The pattern seems to be attack the stragglers on their way home late at night when its dark.

WHAT'S AT STAKE BEYOND THE ELECTION. One thing at least is about who will count as persons deserving respect in the nation. AN's victory speech was full of ominous - and historically all too familiar - references to his opponents as trash, flotsam and jetsam (Khas o Khashak) and dirt, who have to "submit" to the undifferentiated undivided will of the "nation." Interestingly the state TV yesterday has begun a more subtle and effective
strategy of inclusion: reminding everyone that all candidates were regime-approved and so are part of the family, and drawing a line between all candidates on the one hand and the forces of disorder on the other. This reflects a slight but significant distinction between AN and the Leader as well as the up till now latent struggle between them. AN wavers continuously on whether the "nation" is equivalent to the entire population (70 million), all those eligible to vote (46 million), all those that did vote (40 million), or only those that voted for him (24 million). He clearly leans to the last definition. The Leader, for obvious reasons, is wary of permitting the boundary of "we" to be drawn minimally exclusively around AN's supporters. But he is perhaps caught between the two. In sum, a big part of what is driving people is the outrage of being so openly insulted and dismissed, whatever the election results. Even by AN's official count, his opponents are still fourteen million people.

COMMUNICATION BLACKOUT INCREASING. As of this morning, all TV signals in my neighborhood are blocked. Some e-m gets through if one is using Outlook but not via a web-based e-m. No web site page is opening, although different parts of the city experience different degrees of access. So no access here to twitter. I am told the jamming of satellite signals use especially strong beams able to "jam" all satellite signals. I don't know the technology and I am worried about and its affect on us especially small children. We live right next to a communications ministry tower so apparently get the full blast. Mobile communications switched off throughout the day - when there is a demonstration beginning, and turned back on about an hour ago about midnight here. So no texting. Last night on Iranian state TV in an interview with the Guardian Council representative viewers where asked via ticker on the bottom of the screen to send in comments by text message. Someone called and said, "no text service is possible". The message was removed.

Elsewhere I've written about Tehran's war on satellite dishes.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

One of the most significant changes in the world of finance in recent decades has been the explosive growth and rapid innovation in the market for financial derivatives. Much of this development has occurred in the market for OTC derivatives, which are not executed on regulated exchanges. In 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) explicitly exempted OTC derivatives, to a large extent, from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In addition, the law limited the SEC's authority to regulate certain types of OTC derivatives. As a result, the market for OTC derivatives has largely gone unregulated.

The downside of this lax regulatory regime for OTC derivatives - and, in particular, for credit default swaps (CDS) - became disastrously clear during the recent financial crisis. In the years prior to the crisis, many institutions and investors had substantial positions in CDS - particularly CDS that were tied to asset backed securities (ABS), complex instruments whose risk characteristics proved to be poorly understood even by the most sophisticated of market participants. At the same time, excessive risk taking by AIG and certain monoline insurance companies that provided protection against declines in the value of such ABS, as well as poor counterparty credit risk management by many banks, saddled our financial system with an enormous - and largely unrecognized - level of risk.

When the value of the ABS fell, the danger became clear. Individual institutions believed that these derivatives would protect their investments and provide return, even if the market went down. But, during the crisis, the sheer volume of these contracts overwhelmed some firms that had promised to provide payment on the CDS and left institutions with losses that they believed they had been protected against. Lacking authority to regulate the OTC derivatives market, regulators were unable to identify or mitigate the enormous systemic threat that had developed.

But what's missing from this accurate summary is a list of the culprits--that is, those policymakers and legislators responsible for allowing swaps to go unregulated and turn into a financial Frankenstein's monster. I've written about ex-Senator Phil Gramm's underhanded role in this. But another key player was Larry Summers. In 1998, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission raised the prospect of regulating swaps. But Summers, then the deputy secretary of the Treasury (along with Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Fed chair Alan Greenspan) shouted, No!

These wise men each gazed with horror upon [CFTC chair] Born's proposed consideration of regulation for derivatives. Speaking for them, on July 30, 1998, Summers testified in the Senate against the notion of the CFTC even pondering rules governing the trading of derivatives. By releasing its memo, the CFTC, Summers complained, "has cast the shadow of regulatory uncertainty over an otherwise thriving market--raising risks for the stability and competitiveness of American derivative trading."

....Even "small regulatory changes," Summers cautioned, could throw the whole system out of whack. Determined to slap down the CFTC, his Treasury Department, the Fed, and the Securities and Exchange Commission crafted a proposal that would prohibit the CFTC from issuing new rules regulating any swap or "hybrid instrument.

How tables turn. These days, Summers is President Barack Obama's top economic adviser and had a strong hand in Obama reform plan that calls for regulating OTC swaps (but not private swaps between large institutions). If only Summers had been so cautious about swaps a decade ago. He might have saved himself some work--and saved the American taxpayers billions (or is it trillions?) of dollars in bailouts for swaps-enabled firms.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

I think he smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue. It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics.

Cheney today struck back, saying, "I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted."

Hours later, the CIA put out a statement:

The Director does not believe the former vice president wants an attack. He did not say that. He was simply expressing his profound disagreement with the assertion that President Obama's security policies have made our country less safe. Nor did he question anyone's motives.

This explanation hung on a thin reed: that Panetta had said that it was almost as if Cheney wanted another attack, not that he actually desired one. Still, it did look as if Panetta had been brushed back by Cheney.

And Chris Matthews, Michael Isikoff, and I sliced and diced this episode on Hardball:

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.