Bartle Bull has a harsh but fairly comprehensive takedown of Barack Obama in the new issue of Prospect Magazine, and one that's worth reading in full whether you agree with it not.

But, given that we're only 65 days or so into the Obama administration, this part struck me as just a wee bit premature:

Thus the big question in Democratic circles today: “What does Hillary do about this?” Her supporters still feel that the election was stolen from her. With capital on strike, states rebelling against the president's dependency agenda, the treasury secretary probably soon to be replaced, many top jobs still unfilled, the liberal press anxious and poll numbers plummeting, Hillary Clinton's departure could sink an administration that already feels like a listing ship, leaving her a clear path to the Democratic nomination for 2012.

The big question in Democratic cirlces today is whether Hillary is going to resign to try and damage Obama so she can run in 2012? I seriously doubt it.

Maybe two years from now, if Obama suffers a serious defeat in the 2010 mid-terms, the economy still sucks, and he's looking like Jimmy Carter redux, Clinton might consider it. But not before then.

One day after President Obama offered his endorsement in an e-mail to supporters, Democrat Scott Murphy has released a radio ad recorded by Vice President Biden.

"As a graduate of Syracuse Law School, I not only root for the orange, I root for Upstate New York as well," Biden says in the ad. "That's why this special election you'll be holding next Tuesday, March 31st is so important to me. I'm supporting Scott Murphy for Congress, and so is President Obama."

The special election for New York's 20th District takes place Tuesday, March 31.

Click through to see the full script and listen to the ad. (more...)

I'd never really thought about the estate tax, often referred to as the death tax, in generational terms, which is why Clayton Leverett's piece in the Austin American-Statesman was so compelling.

A 5th generation rancher, Leverett recounts how his family has been forced to take out loans to pay the estate tax over and over again on his family's ranch every time the patriarch of the family has died.

Leverett's piece offers a backdrop to the renewed debate that's going on over the estate tax. Based on legislation passed in 2001, the estate tax is set to be repealed altogether in 2010 before snapping back in 2011 to Clinton-era rates of a 55% tax on any estate over $1 million.

President Obama has proposed freezing the estate tax at its current 2009 level which provides a $3.5 million exemption and a taxable rate of 45%. Democratic budget proposals current under consideration in Congress mirror the President's proposal, though according to this analysis there are changes in valuation discounts that would in fact raise tax liabilities on farmers and ranchers just like Leverett.

However, Republican Senator Charles Grassley said this week he thinks the current situation favors those who want to see further decreases in the death tax:

"If Republicans stick together, we can do better than $3.5 million and a 45% tax rate," Grassley told reporters after his speech. "Maybe not a whole lot better, but we ought to be able to do a little bit better."

He said Republicans could press for an exemption closer to $5 million or $6 million, and a tax rate closer to 35%.

Grassley said Democrats will be eager to avoid having the tax go to zero on Jan. 1, 2010, only to have to reverse that by reinstituting it through legislation later. Republicans should be able to exploit that urgency to press for better terms, he said.

"This is where Republicans have got some leverage, it seems to me," said Grassley.

Another point worth making is that the people with truly vast fortunes probably don't pay anywhere near 45% on their estates. They employ high paid accountants and lawyers to make sure their assets are sheltered using every available legal gimmick or loophole.

Those who feel the full brunt of the estate tax are the people, probably like Leverett, who are business owners who have assets in equipment or property that reaches above the exemption but don't possess the liquidity of the super wealthy.

"Rod," asked FOX reporter Anne Kavanagh, "can you tell us how your radio performance went?"

"Um, is this the camera right here?" he asked, turning, smiling, walking and talking through the crowd, giving FOX an excellent live shot. "All I can tell you is, I had a lot of fun doing it. It was probably the fastest two hours I ever experienced."

If Rod is convicted, time will pass much more slowly.

From John Kass's column this morning detailing Rod Blagojevich's stint yesterday as a radio host.

More "hard news" from the Washington Post, featured on the front page of its web site.

Looks like Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, isn't on board with Obama's former campaign slogan or his offer of a new dialogue with Iran . Here is what Khamenei said in his Norouz address  about Obama's recent video taped message, according to a translation by Memri:

"Well, where is this change? What has changed? Make it clear to us - what has changed? Has your hostility to the Iranian people changed? Where is the sign of that? Have you released the Iranian assets? Have you lifted the unjust sanctions? Have you stopped the mud-slinging, the accusations, and the propaganda against this great nation and its leaders, who rose from among the people? Have you stopped your unconditional defense of the Zionist regime? What has changed? They use the slogan of change, but in fact, there is no evidence of change. We have not seen any change. Not even the discourse has changed. The new American president, from the very first moment - when he entered office and made his [inauguration] speech - insulted Iran and the government of the Islamic Republic. Why? If you are right, and there really is change - where is this change? Why can't we see anything? I say this to everyone. The American officials and other people should know that it is impossible to deceive or intimidate the Iranian people."

Seriously, who gives a shit what Eric Cantor was doing last night? The fact that the Huffington Post feels the need to blast this "scoop" out via email is an indication of just how unserious they are.

I'm generally not a fan of Matt Taibbi, and I think his left wing bias leads him into the border regions of tinfoil hat land at times in this piece, but by and large it was a very well done and compelling piece of journalism on the meltdown of the financial industry.

Two polls released today show two quite different results in Pennsylvania's 2010 Senate Republican primary. A Franklin & Marshall poll, which we wrote about earlier, showed Sen. Arlen Specter leading ex-congressman Pat Toomey by 15 points, with 42% undecided.

A Quinnipiac poll released this morning, however, finds the tables turned -- Toomey leads Specter by 14 points, 41%-27% with 28% undecided (March 19-23, 423 GOP RV).

Specter holds a huge lead in name ID, according to Quinnipiac, with a 45%/31% favorability rating. However, just 29% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of Specter, compared to 60% of Democrats and 41% of independents.

The more-conservative Toomey received a 14%/6% favorability rating, with 78% unaware of who he is.

Ben Smith picks up on a Geithner gaffe:

Geithner, at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.S. is "open" to a headline-grabbing proposal by the governor of the China's central bank, which was widely reported as being a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar, but which Geithner described as more modest and "evolutionary."

Smith notes that the moderator sensed a gaffe and presented Geithner with an opportunity for a redo on the issue, which he appears to have taken. (UPDATE: Smith also notes Geithner's comment cause the value of the dollar to plunge, though it recovered somewhat after his clarification.)

Stephen Hayes notes Austin Goolsbee made a similarly flimsy denial yesterday afternoon with Wolf Blitzer.

Sandwiched between these two remarks, of course, was the President's more assertive response to the same question at last night's presser. In some areas, a lack of message discipline among different players in the administration isn't much of a problem. On an issue as vital as one involving the strength of the dollar in the middle of an economic meltdown, it's a bit disconcerting - to put it charitably.