An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill, BuzzFeed has learned.

John Kass, Chicago Tribune
To our most gracious foreign guests from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization:(This includes world leaders, dignitaries, generals, distinguished diplomats and all you foreign spymasters who think you're fooling somebody by posing as a low-level clerk carrying the bags.)Welcome to the City by the Lake.You'll spend much time over the coming weekend trapped on Security Island, which our officials call McCormick Place. But beyond the hordes of protesters and phalanxes of police, there's a city out there called Chicago.

Craig Melvin, MSNBC
Politico's Manu Raju appeared on MSNBC this afternoon to talk with guest host Craig Melvin about a possible racial element behind five black members of Congress being targeted in an ethics investigation. MSNBC's Melvin seemed caught up with the racial aspect in the case."Are black lawmakers being unfairly targeted for ethics investigations in Congress?" he asked Raju.

Tim Stanley, Telegraph
Whatever you think of Breitbart.com’s punishing vetting process, it has exposed just how little work the mainstream media did in investigating candidate Obama back in 2008. Not all of Team Breitbart’s revelations have been election-deciders, but they have often been stuff that a simple Google would have uncovered. If they revealed tomorrow that he’d had his own cross-dressing-themed sitcom on primetime TV in the 1980s, I wouldn’t be surprised.The latest find is a fascinating inversion of the birther conspiracy. Breitbart.com has...

Mississippi state Rep. Andy Gipson (R) weighed in on President Barack Obama's gay marriage decision last week, invoking a bible passage that calls for gay men to be "put to death."

In a May 10 Facebook post, Gipson called homosexuality a "sin," citing Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-28:

Leviticus 20:13 reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

On the same thread, he responded to a follower, calling same-sex relationships "unnatural" and suggesting that they will inherently "result in disease":

UnityMS flagged the post and issued a response to Gipson's comments:

Mr. Gipson needs to realize he represents all of his constituents. He should not cherry-pick which constituents he wants to work for. He should also realize his positions are neither popular nor Republican. LGBT individuals, couples, and families help pay Gipson’s salary. It’s important that he remember that.

While the nation's approval of gay marriage has trended upward, topping out at over 50 percent in a recent poll, a November 2011 survey found that only 13 percent of Mississippi voters thought it should be legal, while 78 percent said it should remain illegal. Even among Democrats, only 19 percent expressed support.

The Truth-o-Meter says: Half Flip | Did Mitt Romney flip-flop on the economic stimulus?

During his 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney has been no fan of the stimulus Democrats passed in 2009. On the third anniversary of its passage, Romney issued a news release titled, "Three Years Later, Obama's Stimulus is Still Failing." Democrats contend Romney has flip-flopped on it. On Nov. 28, 2011, the Democratic National Committee released two videos -- a 30-second version and a four-minute version -- that claimed he had flipped on several issues, including the stimulus:     On-screen text: "Opposed the stimulus."     Video clip ...

>> More

The Truth-o-Meter says: No Flip | Did Mitt Romney flip-flop on TARP?

The Troubled Asset Relief Program -- the "TARP" program that was supposed to stabilize the financial markets -- has not been popular with conservatives. During the Republican presidential primary, most candidates attacked it. But the Democratic National Committee says Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on it. On Nov. 28, 2011, the DNC released two videos -- a 30-second version and a four-minute version -- that said Romney flipped on several issues, including TARP.         About three minutes into the four-minute version, the word "TARP" appears on screen. Then Romney ...

>> More

The Truth-o-Meter says: Half Flip | Did Mitt Romney flip-flop on gun control?

Mitt Romney has at times had an awkward relationship with firearms, as when he said during the 2008 Republican presidential primary that his hunting experience generally involved "small varmints." But has he flip-flopped on gun policy? We’ll start by noting that the Flip-O-Meter rates politicians' consistency on particular topics from No Flip to Full Flop. The meter is not intended to pass judgment on their decisions to change their minds. It’s simply gauging whether they did. Romney’s statements on gun restrictions before he became governor In ...

>> More

Robert Tracinski, TIA Daily
When President Obama's re-election campaign put up its "Life of Julia" feature, the mockery from the right came thick and fast, focusing on Julia's creepy faceless anonymity"”literally, the way she is drawn, she has no face"”and on the apparent absence in her life of family, friends, a mentor, a spouse, or anyone or anything to compete with the beneficence of the federal government.Beyond the mockery, though, there is a sense that "Julia" reveals some very important things about the worldview of the left. Here's one...

The 137th running of the Preakness Stakes, the second leg of horse racing's Triple Crown, is this Saturday at Pimlico race track in Baltimore, Maryland. The Preakness can either destroy the dreams of the Kentucky Derby winner's team or it can set up drama like no other at the Belmont Stakes. There has not been a Triple Crown winning horse since 1978, when Affirmed completed the trifecta. I'll Have Another, the 2012 Kentucky Derby winner, is hoping to do the same in 2012.

Mitt Romney has locked up the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 2012. Just like I'll Have Another, he is riding high right now. Romney is leading President Obama in a recent CBS News/New York Times poll. His next major campaign move, selecting his Vice Presidential nominee, might decide what looks to be a very close general election. If you don't believe me, look no further than Sarah Palin in 2008.

So without further ado I give you the "Mitt Romney VP Odd's Preakness Style" based on the first early morning lines of the race when post positions were drawn. Can there be anything more fun than combining premier US horse racing with presidential politics? I think not.

THE FAVORITES

8-5 Odds - Bodemeister/Senator Marco Rubio (R - FL): Bodemeister led from the gate to nearly the finish of the Kentucky Derby until I'll Have Another caught him. Just like Bodemeister, Rubio sprinted out to an early lead in the veepstakes and has maintained it up to this point. He is a rising star, has been called the "crown prince" of the Tea Party movement, and potentially delivers the most important swing state of them all. He also helps with the all important and growing Latino vote. Can Rubio seal the deal with Romney or will he get passed in the end like Bodemeister in the Derby? Maybe Romney passes if Mitt can't handle Rubio's "star power" potentially outshining him. This pick makes so much sense for Mitt.

5-2 Odds - I'll Have Another/Senator Rob Portman (R - OH): I'll Have Another shocked the horse racing world down the stretch of the 138th Kentucky Derby with his closing and finishing speed. Rob Portman is one those guys who has often been mentioned in the running for Romney's mate, but isn't as exciting to many Republicans as Rubio. Portman has served his country in the United States House and Senate, as well as in two cabinet positions in the George W. Bush administration. He is from the coveted swing state of Ohio, which President Obama won in 2008. Portman is a lot like Romney when it comes to style and substance, but his experience might make him a tad bit safer choice than Rubio. Portman is closing fast on Rubio in I'll Have Another fashion.

6-1 Odds - Went the Day Well/Governor Bob McDonnell (R - VA): Went the Day Well went from 17th to a 4th place finish at this year's Kentucky Derby. His jockey, Jose Valezquez, recently said to Fox Sports, "he was so far back I couldn't make up that much ground, no way." Bob McDonnell doesn't have to make up as much ground because he gives Romney a chance to win the state of Virginia, which President Obama won in 2008. A former State Attorney General who has served in the military, McDonnell has seen unemployment in Virgina drop from 7.3 percent to 5.6 percent during his short time in the Governor's office. If "it's the economy stupid" election, Mitt might show that Virginia is for lovers and chose McDonnell.

6-1 Odds - Creative Cause/Congressman Paul Ryan (R - WI): If Creative Cause gets a clean path in the Preakness he just might pull it off. Why you ask? Based on Trakus data that recorded Kentucky Derby race results, Creative Cause traveled 29 more feet than the winner, but 79 less feet than the runner up. He finished only three lengths behind the Preakness favorite Bodemeister in the Kentucky Derby. Paul Ryan is a high profile Congressman who is every cutting government fan's dream. He has a good rapport with Romney and his "Ryan Plan" was endorsed by Mitt. He is on the cover of the Republican conservative budgeting playbook and this might make him irresistible for Romney.

MIDDLE OF THE PACK

12-1 Odds - Daddy Nose Best/Governor Chris Christie (R - NJ): Daddy Nose Best has been called "very perky" since his 10th place finish in the Kentucky Derby. Christie is the exact opposite of Mitt Romney, he likes to ad lib. Scripts, what scripts? The Republican base loves him, but he might be too much for Mitt to handle. Paging Joe Biden.

15-1 Odds - Teeth Of The Dog/Governor Bobby Jindal (R - LA): Teeth of the Dog's trainer says he has "galloped out real good" lately. Bobby Jindal has been doing well himself, as Americans for Tax Reform's Grover Norquist recently said he was the guy Romney should choose for his VP. Republicans and Louisianans believe he is an effective reformer who has weathered many storms in his state. Jindal has been the flavor of the month many times, and his loose personality might be a good antithesis to Romney.

20-1 Odds - Zetterholm/Senator Kelly Ayotte (R - NH): You say Northeast ticket I say Romney/Ayotte, Romney/Ayotte...Romney/Ayotte. Kelly Ayotte is picking up a lot of steam lately in the veepstakes, just as Zetterholm has won his last three races. A female running mate could help Romney with his lagging numbers with this important demographic. However, Sarah Palin has described Ayotte as a "Granite State 'mama grizzly' who has broken barriers." Say what?

30-1 Odds - Cozzetti/Fmr. Governor Tim Pawlenty (R - MN): Cozzetti's trainer Dale Romans recently said of the horse, "One day he's going to wake up and run lights out." Republicans have been waiting for Pawlenty to do this on a national level for awhile. He dropped out of the 2012 race after the Iowa straw poll and was on the very short VP list for John McCain in 2008. He still has a lot of strong conservative fans. Will Mitt give him the chance to run lights out? Probably not.

TAKE A FLIER

30-1 Odds - Tiger Walk/Governor Nikki Haley (R - SC): Why Tiger Walk? Kent Desormeaux is his jockey. Why Nikki Haley for Romney 2012? Female, Tea Party starlet, and she is a governor from the south. Good contrast with Mitt.

30-1 Odds - Optimizer/Congressman Mitch Daniels (R - IN): Optimizer is using the Preakness to prepare for the Belmont Stakes. Optimizer's trainer believes that the Belmont will be his best race. Mitch Daniels was widely speculated to be a presidential candidate in 2012, but choose not to run. This publicity and positive speculation is only helping a possible run in 2016 should Romney lose to President Obama. Daniels serves out his second term as Governor of Indiana.

LONGSHOT

30-1 Odds - Pretension/Fmr. Governor Mike Huckabee (R - AR): Pretension is the token Maryland horse in the race to make the local fans get excited. Folksy Mike Huckabee does the same thing to the conservative and evangelical base of the Republican party. It would be a surprise, but stranger things have happened in politics.

Happy 137th Preakness and 2012 Republican presidential veepstakes.

And down the stretch they come...

Last month, a series of investigative reports in the Washington Post revealed that a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) task force had spent nine years reviewing cases in which it was alleged that some forensic evidence prosecutors used in obtaining convictions was flawed. Despite warnings that problems were potentially widespread, the task force focused its review on a limited number of cases involving hair and fiber evidence and on the work of a single scientist in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) lab. The review revealed that in many cases, flawed forensic evidence played a role in convicting defendants, at least a handful of whom have since been proven to be innocent.

Disturbingly, for more than a decade, DOJ kept the findings of the review hidden from the public, and more damning, from many of those convicted based on faulty forensic evidence. (The Post gained access to case files and memos under the Freedom of Information Act.) As a result, according to the Post's Spencer Hsu, "Hundreds of defendants nationwide remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit exoneration, a retrial or a retesting of evidence using DNA because FBI hair and fiber experts may have misidentified them as suspects."

The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has acknowledged the faulty evidence in at least one case, that of Santae Tribble, who served 28 years in prison for a murder the prosecutors now admit he most likely did not do. In an extraordinary step, federal prosecutors asked the courts to overturn Tribble's conviction, and agreed to review all District convictions based on hair evidence.

It's a small step in the right direction. But it's not nearly enough. If the DOJ thinks there may be problems with hair evidence in District of Columbia cases, why should we believe there are not similar problems with hair evidence compiled by the FBI lab and used to obtain convictions in other jurisdictions? To think this kind of potentially flawed evidence or testimony is confined to single location makes no sense.

At a minimum, the DOJ must conduct a comprehensive review of all cases in which the Department knows or has reason to believe that one of its forensic analysts failed to follow established protocols, overstated the reliability of his or her findings, or otherwise misused the findings. This comprehensive review cannot be done alone or in secret. The DOJ must work with other experts, such as independent forensic scientists, the American Bar Association and ethics authorities.

Moreover, a process must be established to identify and review any forensic technique that is debunked or called into serious question to determine what cases and what kinds of evidence warrant review. This process should include, but not be limited to, hair analysis (the subject of the DOJ task force's original investigation) in jurisdictions beyond just the District of Columbia.

In addition, Congress must act to address the concerns raised by the National Academy of Sciences about the integrity and reliability of forensic evidence. The American people have a right to expect that the forensic scientists on whom federal prosecutors rely are trained and fully competent; that they work in accredited laboratories; and that their findings and opinions are consistent with peer-reviewed research. Shockingly, these basic standards are not guaranteed today.

Perhaps even more frightening than the failure of the forensic evidence is the DOJ's decision not to directly notify defendants and their attorneys about these potential flaws. As many as half of the defendants whose hair evidence the task force called into question were never told about the review. The Post's stories about DOJ's nondisclosure of potentially favorable evidence come on the heels of the release of a report exposing serious prosecutorial misconduct in the case against the late senator Ted Stevens and are further evidence of a culture of nondisclosure within the Department that must be remedied.

No longer can the DOJ explain away every constitutional and ethical violation as a regrettable, but unintentional, mistake by the individual prosecutor involved. The revelation that DOJ failed to take responsibility for informing individuals after discovering that they were convicted using seriously flawed forensic evidence exposes a more systemic problem. Something has to give-and that something is the culture of nondisclosure that has developed among some DOJ prosecutors. Congress needs to pass pending legislation to ensure that future defendants have access to all information to which they are constitutionally entitled.

When there is reason to believe that criminal convictions are unreliable, whether because of improper testimony by examiners or because forensic science is no longer believed to be credible, the government absolutely has a duty to reexamine those convictions to ensure that no individual has lost his or her liberty or rights unfairly. Further, the government has a duty to conduct such a review in a transparent manner, sharing the results openly and promptly with defendants. Knowing what it knows now, the DOJ should step up and demonstrate its commitment to accuracy and transparency, as well as fairness, in criminal convictions.

Bill Schneider, Politico
‘More to come.” That’s what a source close to the Obama campaign told POLITICO about the ad attacking Mitt Romney’s record as chief executive officer of Bain Capital. This is not a one-week story. It’s going to be the central narrative of the Obama campaign.Why are Democrats so confident they can win on the anti-Bain issue? Because it hits Romney on the defining theme of his campaign: Romney’s claim that he’s a turnaround artist.

Claude Marx, RealClearBooks
Often when one is about to read the umpteenth biography of a prominent figure there is the temptation to think of the phrase "everything that can be said has been, though not everyone has said it.'' That's definitely not the case with the fourth volume (out of a projected five) of Robert A. Caro's brilliant, if at times overwritten, biography of Lyndon Johnson.

Alan Dershowitz, NYDN
A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

Mitt "Electability" Romney has won just one general election in nearly twenty years of politicking. His one and only term of office left him with an approval rating of 34%. Make no mistake about it: this was the best guy the Republicans had to offer this cycle.

Try to imagine just how bad the guy's running mate will have to be.

Of course, sane people will tell you that Rob Portman is the most obvious choice and, in this context, Portman's not bad at all. There are other promising contenders, too. Rand Paul would be great help in fundraising and energizing the Paul, er, enthusiasts, but the guy clearly isn't ready for prime time and nobody wants to be the next Sarah Palin in that regard. Paul Ryan offers similar benefits, but would have the unfortunate side effect of calling attention to what Republicans have actually been up to these last couple of years. Jeb Bush would make a great running mate, if it weren't for the fact that his last name is poison outside Florida. And, hey, maybe with enough coaxing Mike Huckabee could be convinced to--no, wait. No he couldn't.

But sane people aren't terribly involved in the GOP nomination process. The people who are have--strangely enough, even for them--spent the last week or so lobbying to make Bobby Jindal Romney's #2. Bobby freakin' Jindal.

Bobby Jindal, Bobby Jindal... How can I put this kindly? Bobby Jindal is an outright curiosity. Bobby Jindal is beyond gifted academically, yet he more often than not manages to come off like the lost cousin of Goober and Gomer Pyle. The one they never talk about. When Barney asks how Bobby is doing, Goober and Gomer just shake their heads and stare at their feet. Still, he is a Republican-friendly curiosity: Jindal is, after all, walking validation of every anti-intellectual suspicion the right wing holds about higher education.

Most of the world was introduced to Jindal through his shockingly daft 2009 State of the Union response, described as "painful" by Republican Strategist Ed Rollins immediately after.

If you don't recall Jindal's bizarre, all-smiles rant about "out of control" government spending, it might be because he managed to identify none. His list of pork included just three items: High speed rail systems (since when is the government responsible for infrastructure, anyway?), "cars for the government" and "something called volcano monitoring."

"Something called volcano monitoring." Those were Jindal's very words. It was as if to say, "What sorcery is this!"

"Instead of monitoring volcanoes," he concluded, "what congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, DC." Funny, I know some women who would say the same thing about their uteruses.

Also funny that he used the word "eruption," which made it sound like he knew why a government interested in public safety might want to monitor volcanoes. Yet, there he sat, wide-eyed and slack-jawed, in awe that such a thing might even exist. As if the Earth itself felt compelled to slap him in the back of the head, one of Jindal's volcanoes erupted soon after.

At the same time, it would be very, very difficult to overstate how impressive Jindal's educational pedigree is. Bobby Jindal is, literally, a Rhodes scholar. He is also a biology major who claims there is "no scientific theory" that explains how organic life comes from inorganic matter. You know, like abiogenesis through the formation of amino acids, most likely in the Eoarchean era, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment. But I might be getting some of that wrong--I'm not a Rhodes scholar or biology major, after all. Bobby Jindal is the science guy; I am not.

Maybe Bobby Jindal missed that day of class because he was, at the time, living in a William Blatty novel.

You see, one of Jindal's college friends, Susan, was treated for cancer. In recounting the events that spun out of that tragedy, Jindal takes great pains to imply that the young woman was in love with him, but that he wanted only a very close friendship. One night, with an operation imminent, the young woman suddenly left a concert they had attended together, sobbing. Later, Jindal noted that she had been acting strangely even apart from that... but for whatever reason? The cancer? The treatment? Unrequited love? Demonic possession?

The next day, she collapsed in extreme pain, followed by a seizure--the sort of thing that might prompt you or me to call an ambulance. Unfortunately for the young woman, this happened at a prayer meeting. Demonic possession was the preferred diagnosis. Jindal and his campus crusader pals decided to perform an exorcism rather than call for help.

Here's a taste of Jindal's account:

"The students, led by Susan's sister and Louise, a member of a charismatic church, engaged in loud and desperate prayers while holding Susan with one hand. Kneeling on the ground, my friends were chanting, 'Satan, I command you to leave this woman.' Others exhorted all 'demons to leave in the name of Christ.' It is no exaggeration to note the tears and sweat among those assembled. Susan lashed out at the assembled students with verbal assaults."

Clearly, this was a case of demonic possession, as no person in the throes of a genuine and serious medical emergency someone might lash out at those people like that.

Jindal's full account reads like satire--a black-as-night comedy that would be hilarious if it were not, allegedly, true. After more "oooh-woo-oooh" and bumps in the night, he continues:

"Maybe she sensed our weariness; whether by plan or coincidence, Susan chose the perfect opportunity to attempt an escape. She suddenly leapt up and ran for the door, despite the many hands holding her down. This burst of action served to revive the tired group of students and they soon had her restrained once again, this time half kneeling and half standing. Alice, a student leader in Campus Crusade for Christ, entered the room for the first time, brandishing a crucifix. Running out of options, UCF had turned to a rival campus Christian group for spiritual tactics. The preacher had denied our request for assistance and recommended that we not confront the demon; his suggestion was a little late."

Apparently, no one suggested the "spiritual tactic" of calling an ambulance to the man Grover Norquist would like to see a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Eugene Robinson, Indianapolis Star
WASHINGTON -- The soundtrack of my youth is fading. That's hardly an original observation, I realize, but self-indulgence is a columnist's inalienable right and music has unique power to summon unbidden waves of nostalgia. I'll spend the rest of the day listening to the "Queen of Disco" and the "Godfather of Go-Go," and saying goodbye.Donna Summer, who died Thursday, was the undisputed monarch of a musical genre that I tried my best to hate. Disco had none of the spontaneity and rough edges of rock 'n' roll, none of the rawness and authenticity of...

Charles Krauthammer, Wash Post
There are two ways to defend gay marriage. Argument A is empathy: One is influenced by gay friends in committed relationships yearning for the fulfillment and acceptance that marriage conveys upon heterosexuals. That’s essentially the case President Obama made when he first announced his change of views.No talk about rights, just human fellow feeling. Such an argument is attractive because it can be compelling without being compulsory. Many people, feeling the weight of this longing among their gay friends, are willing to redefine marriage for the sake of simple human sympathy.

Ed Kilgore, The New Republic
Plenty of liberals and other Americans of good conscience no doubt breathed a sigh of relief when AmeriTrade founder and Chicago Cubs co-owner Joe Ricketts distanced himself yesterday from the $10 million racially-tinged Jeremiah Wright ad blitz that the New York Times had reported he was considering buying. But it would be a mistake to consider that any sort of significant victory against the disproportionate power wielded by super PACs. Indeed, even if big donors decide not to corrode the atmosphere of the presidential campaign, they have already demonstrated—Ricketts did so...

Mitt Romney will campaign Friday in New Hampshire, looking for his own "bridge to nowhere." The Romney camp thinks they have found it in a 19th century bridge no longer used for traffic that was restored with state and federal funds.

Romney's attack on the $288,000 bridge restoration will run into several immediate challenges: Funding for the project was overwhelmingly supported by state Republicans, including a significant number who have now endorsed Romney for president. The infrastructure project created much-needed jobs during tough economic times. And it left behind a public park enjoyed by Granite State residents who take great pride in their early-American and colonial history -- and who will be casting critical, swing-state votes in November. It's a curious breed of conservatism that would find offense in the job-creating conservation of a stone arch bridge that is one of the earliest examples of dry-laid masonry vaults in New England.

According to the Union Leader of Manchester, Romney is scheduled to speak in Hillsborough on Friday afternoon, and will highlight the Sawyer Bridge as an example of unnecessary government spending. The stone bridge, originally built in the 1800s, is no longer used for vehicular traffic, but the area surrounding it has been converted into a small public park. A Romney spokesperson didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Romney will use the location to emphasize what he sees as the misuse of taxpayer funds in the face of the growing national debt. He'll have to be careful which local politicians he invites to stand behind him at the campaign event, because a number of prominent state officials who have endorsed Romney might not agree with the former Massachusetts' governor's characterization of the bridge.

The restoration project cost $150,000 in federal stimulus money -- roughly the amount that Romney earns in three days of income that he still receives from his old job as a private equity executive.

Flickr photo by oliva73200 taken in December 2011.

In 2004, the New Hampshire state legislature, with overwhelming support from both parties, approved a 10-year infrastructure plan that included $138,000 for the Sawyer Bridge repair. The funding provided for a new top surface for the bridge, as well as money to create a picnic area and nearby parking. According to the roll call vote record, the proposal was approved by at least 28 state senators and representatives who have since endorsed Romney.

The additional $150,000 in federal funding as part of President Barack Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. Restoration was completed in 2010.

That year, Republican Sean Mahoney made a similar attack on the Sawyer Bridge during his failed bid for Congress. Mahoney's former campaign strategist Pat Hynes was recently hired by the Romney campaign

During the 2008 presidential campaign, then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) spoke repeatedly about rejecting federal funding for a multimillion dollar bridge that would have been used by only a handful of residents. The story turned out to be mostly untrue -- she was for the funding until it became clear Congress wouldn't provide it -- but Palin used it to establish her fiscally conservative credentials. Alaska's bridge to nowhere was easily mockable, but the bridge in New Hampshire appears to offer little to grab on to.

While New Hampshire went for Obama by over nine percentage points in 2008, recent polls have predicted a fairly tight race in November. As a result, both parties have put a strong emphasis on the state. Friday's visit marks Romney's third stop in the state in the last month. Vice President Joe Biden will make his fourth trip of the year on Tuesday.

I (right) and my partner, Jean Albright, a 20-year Air Force veteran who is director of new media for Windy City Media Group, held a private wedding April 28 in Chicago. We have been together 18 years. We did not register as a civil union in Illinois, out of protest over the unequal treatment of LGBT couples. Mona Noriega, director of the Chicago Commission on Human Relations, led the ceremony. Also pictured is David Strzepek, who was among those standing for the ceremony. Photo by Hal Baim.

Barack Obama returned back to his 1996 view on same-sex marriage last week, but this time he did so as president of the United States. In an interview with ABC's Robin Roberts, Obama confirmed that he has "evolved" on the issue and personally backs same-sex marriage. While he said the issue is for the states to handle, which disappointed some, the fact is that Obama can't regulate what states do, and it will be up to the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal district courts to decide the application of federal laws that force states to recognize other states' contracts, including on marriage.

Obama's revolution back to his 1996 view, stated in a response to an Outlines newspaper candidate questionnaire (Outlines purchased and merged with Windy City Times in 2000), was part personal and part practical. In 1996, when he was first running for the Illinois state senate, Obama said he would support same-sex marriage and fight any efforts to limit it; this was in light of the then-new plans for "defense of marriage" state and federal laws.

At the core, Obama actually never changed his view that same-sex couples should have the same rights and benefits as those given to opposite-sex couples. What changed after 1996 was a slow move away from the word "marriage." In 1998, again surveyed by Outlines, he took no position on the topic of same-sex marriage. In 2004, when he was running for U.S. Senate, Obama told me in an interview for Windy City Times that he supported civil unions and all the benefits and rights of marriage for LGBT couples, but not the use of the word "marriage," because it was a more realistic and practical goal to have. By the general election that year, Obama first injected religion into the argument.

This is pretty much where he has stayed ever since, using a religious excuse as a basis for keeping the word "marriage" out of the debate, while remaining in favor of the rights and benefits. But that practical, academic approach was never going to be enough, because the word "marriage" has very real legal and economic benefits. Setting up an entirely new set of laws for same-sex couples will always be separate and unequal.

Parallel to Obama's own shift on same-sex marriage has been a tremendous shift in public opinion. Some polls show that a slight majority of Americans now favor gay marriage. Even though the right wing still campaigns vigorously on social issues, there is a momentum building in favor of marriage equality. Obama boarded the train mid-trip, but the belief is that his words will play an important role moving forward.

I am the first to state that there should be no government involvement in our relationships, including any benefits given to two people who happen to be married. But while there are more than 1,000 financial benefits of marriage federally, plus many locally, those benefits should be equal. I also see the value of the marriage movement in pulling along, in the jetstream of the marriage fight, so many other LGBT rights issues.

What caused this shift for Obama? He has said in recent months that he was evolving on this issue, but most expected the complete evolution to happen after the November elections. That would have been the practical, cynical thing to do. But the other risk was that his base would continue to see his position as hypocritical and without integrity, and that part of his base would stay home and stop writing campaign checks. This delicate political balance, however, seems to have been only part of the reason for Obama's "coming out" for marriage equality. In the end, his and Michelle's own personal friendships, and the friendships of his daughters with children of gay and lesbian parents, are said to have also fed into this change. He could no longer reconcile his support of "everything but" marriage with his support of equality. He came to realize that civil unions were not the answer. And he made a decision that may hurt him politically but relieve him emotionally.

As he told ABC May 9:

I have to tell you that over the course of several years, as I talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed, monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that "don't ask, don't tell" is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

With those words, Obama made history. No president has done as much as Obama has already doe for LGBT rights and for individual LGBT people's lives (health care, hospital access, etc.). He can't overturn the Defense of Marriage Act without a bill to sign, he can't rule in the courts, and he can't stop states from voting on anti-gay laws, but by speaking out as president for marriage equality, Obama can change hearts and minds. And in the end, the only way we will have long-term success is by changing those hearts and minds. The 1964 Civil Rights Act did not overnight make it easier for African Americans. Had the Equal Rights Amendment passed, it would not have stopped sexism. And the federal hate-crimes law won't stop violence against LGBTs. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia will always exist.

But words do matter. And by speaking out, by giving his own personal view, Obama will make a difference. His taking a stand has ramifications beyond the LGBT movement, because other communities who have felt let down by Obama's differed hopes and dreams may now see that he can get out of a middle ground made of quicksand and take a step on the solid ground of equality.

Tracy Baim is publisher of Windy City Times and author of Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage. This column also appears in Windy City Times this week.