Many labeled Obama's sure-to-be campaign-defining speech as Rooseveltian (the conservation one, not the New Deal one), but Jonathan Chait notes that its more accurate label is "a frame for a campaign to contrast himself with Mitt Romney."
More from Chait: A list of reasons that Newt is awful and why they may not be the downfall of his campaign. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Unless you're a Democrat, then you can laugh really loudly.
Mitt Romney is a veritable scholar of the evil art of flip-flopping. His definitive lecture on the subject can be found here (and here is an example of Mitt Romney practicing the witchcraft of which he speaks). He is also an influential expert on the art of not taking a stance at all, as evidenced in
Ted Widmer's op-ed on the difficulty of being in the third-year of a presidential administration is beautifully-written, chockfull of wonkalicious presidential history, and very smart. If you're going to read one article before the weekend, make it this one.
Pundits and journalists have moved from denial about the possibility of Newt Gingrich winning the nomination right to the bargaining stage —it’s still unlikely that Gingrich will win, but, as John Cassidy asserts, “now it’s a real race!” However, Jonathan Chait argues that Mitt Romney should be more worried about the current frontrunner in the polls than pundits:
This election will be decided on the economy. It's easy to forget about that with the current obsession with the sex lives and relative truthiness of candidates, as well as the focus on the deficit and the Super Committee, but voters are worried about the economy. The person who wins next November will have convinced voters that they are the best chance at improving the economy. Obama and his eventual Republican opponent have tough hurdles to jump in order to prove they are the solution to our country's woes—Obama needs to explain that the relationship between Congress and the White House is not like a child and a parent but instead like warring siblings.