Question of the Day: What do the oil catastrophe and the Wall Street collapse have in common?

Three big things, I'd say.

In both cases, a powerful, politically protected industry invented something that could not easily be repaired when it broke. We seem to be entering an age when complex technologies, whether financial or physical, sometimes literally have no solutions when they go haywire in unanticipated ways. We thought this might happen with nuclear power (and it still could); but for now deepwater drilling is the bigger menace.

Secondly, in both cases the proverbial ounce of prevention was not applied. Had existing laws been enforced, and had the political process not corrupted the regulatory process, these man-made calamities didn't need to happen.

In the case of the oil disaster, which is fast becoming the worst single environmental catastrophe ever, America's long-term failure to move away from dependence on carbon fuels combined with pure short-run political capture. By now, we should have been at the point of energy conversion where high risk, mile-deep undersea wells were not used at all. But even so, this blowout would have been averted had existing laws been enforced.

It's the same story with the financial collapse. We didn't need these exotic, doomsday financial instruments. And had the regulators not been in bed with the industry, the crisis would have been headed off at any of several earlier stages.

But the worst common element is this: both crises are teachable moments that our president could be using to transform public opinion. Yet despite these gifts from the progressive gods, President Obama seems congenitally unable to rise to the occasion.

It appeared, in the end game of the health reform effort and at moments in the financial reform fight, that we were seeing sparks of the Obama whom we so admired on the campaign trail. But Obama's performance in the oil disaster seems a case of one step forward, two steps backward.

If ever there were a moment to make clear that our energy future cannot be left to the energy industry, and to rally the public on behalf of a long term shift away from carbon fuels to renewable sources, it is now. Will we ever have a better, more graphic villain than BP? Will we ever have the public more on our side? Will we ever have Republicans with dirtier hands?

In the late sixties and early 1970s, the environmental movement burst on the national stage because the environmental assaults of that era were immediate and undeniable -- from oil spills to smog to the Cuyahoga River catching fire. Thanks to the victories of that era, environmental damage has become less palpable and pyrotechnic.

Global climate change, the ultimate menace, is gradual, insidious, ineluctable, contested, and seldom vividly symbolized. By contrast the BP blowout is immediate, tangible, and terrifying. Even the Limbaughs and the Becks cannot deny what is dominating TV week after week, and the right is making a fool of itself by lurching from attacking the president's daughter to blurting out that "accidents happen."

There is more than a germ of truth, however, in the right's argument that Obama was slow off the mark to get on top of this crisis, just as he was pitifully slow to clean house at the Minerals Management Service he inherited from Bush. And if the administration does not pick up its game, the Tea Party right will make the Gulf catastrophe Obama's fault, just as it has made the slow pace of recovery and the bank bailouts Obama's fault.

I have been in a number of conversations, as a journalist, a public lecturer, privately, and as author of the new book A Presidency in Peril, in which Obama loyalists urge me to cut the president a little more slack. It's only sixteen months into his presidency. He is still learning. He did, after all, deliver health insurance reform. In that battle, with two outs in the ninth inning, he discovered his inner partisan and fought for a Democrats-only bill, and prevailed.

And he is about to deliver financial reform, right?

But in both cases, the credit goes more to legislative leaders who would not let the bills die and to progressive lobby groups such as H-CAN and Americans for Financial Reform. There is still a furious fight over key provisions in the House and Senate reform bills, and in many cases Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is weighing in on behalf of weaker rather than stronger measures.

With the spotlight off legislative floor action, and a lot of the deals being made in backrooms, the financial industry hopes to gain back ground that it lost as public opinion shifted in favor of tougher reform measures.

The financial reform battle is an epic David-Goliath contest. The banking lobby spends more in a day than Americans for Financial Reform's annual budget. The leadership of AFR combined with the actions of courageous senators such as Maria Cantwell, Jeff Merkley, Al Franken, and a couple of dozen others, shows how public opinion could be rallied.

But imagine how much more reform we could get if the President of the United States clearly weighed in on behalf of David rather than Goliath.

This could also be a defining moment in the fight for a clean energy future if President Obama used it as such.

Time is running out for this president to lead. If he continues temporizing rather than leading, the moment passes, and the Republicans pick up substantial numbers of seats in Congress. The window closes, both for transformative progressive reform and for a successful Obama presidency. Even worse, the initiative passes to a truly lunatic rightwing.

I would say to the loyalists: Yes, this president faces multiple challenges that are really hard, as well as a fiercely obstructionist Republican Party and a grass-roots right in league with a media machine. But all crisis-presidents faced obstacles and the great ones turned them to opportunities.

The other day, one of the president's enthusiasts told me that Obama has been very successful in terms of the agenda that he set out to achieve. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. A president has to play the hand history dealt him.

Robert Kuttner's latest book is A Presidency in Peril. He is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos.

More on Barack Obama

Food and fashion have, at times, had a fraught relationship. However, Sophie Dahl--as sui generis model, writer, and, now, cookbook author--skillfully and beautifully symbolizes and unites those two antithetical passions. Miss Dahl's Voluptuous Delights not only fulfills its subtitle promise of recipes for every season, mood, and appetite, it also describes Dahl's ambiguous relationship with mood through telling anecdotes and vivid stories. Dahl is as inspiring as her recipes are delicious; this is a book to curl up to on the sofa and use in the kitchen. Bon appétit!

Louise McCready: First of all, I loved your cookbook because it felt so genuine, unlike many other celebrity cookbooks. Not only did the stories reveal much about yourself and your both relationship with food and weight, but the recipes are given in a format that feels as though a friend shared them. What was the original inspiration behind the book?

Sophie Dahl: When I was in England, the one question that everyone was always asking was about how I got thinner and I thought there must be a way of answering this once and for all on my own terms so that it doesn't haunt me for the rest of my life. I didn't want people to be obsessed about the fact I was kind of round when I was 18. I thought there must be a way of incorporating that story into my other love, which is cooking and food writing. I grew up around lots of cooks--my mom, my dad, my grandmother, both of my aunts--and because we all lived such nomadic lives sending recipes or speaking about food was also a way of communicating. My aunt would ring me from LA, and ask, "How do you make that miso black cod again?" Food is a great connector.

LM: In the introduction to your new cookbook, the story you tell about two childhood pets, Pancake and Maple Syrup, made me laugh because sounds more like a sexualized Peter Rabbit tale, complete with a rabbit and fox, than a Roald Dahl story. Who are your writing inspirations?

SD: My writing inspirations include Nancy Mitford, Esther Freud, Raffaela Barker, Zadie Smith, Andrea Ashworthy, and Mary Karr. Right now I've been reading a lot of Colum McCann. He's written Let the Great World Spin. Did you see that documentary Man on Wire?

LM: No, but I heard about it and want to.

SD: You know it's about the artist Philippe Petit who spun a wire between two world trade buildings and climbed across it. This is a novel about that day and all the different people watching. It's a very, very carefully spun tale, so he's my current literary crush.

LM: Other than your family, whom you mentioned are all great cooks, what cooks do you admire or find inspirational?

SD: I love the Cordon Bleu-trained serious cooks, but my real love is the rustic style the home cooks--Nigel Slater, Darina Allen, Nigella Lawson, Ruth Rogers and Rose Gray (of River Café). I like cozy food. I've got hosts of cookbooks by people I love--Simon Hopkinson's Roast Chicken and Other Stories, and those by Ambrose Heath, a food writer from the 40's.

LM: You start the book with an "unceremonious leave" from school. Do you ever regret leaving school? Or do you have plans to go back?

SD: I try not to have regrets because I don't know that it serves much purpose. I'd love to go back after I have kids and study something like archeology. I think there's always learning to be done. On rainy days, I always think, what would I go back and study. There's a host of things.

LM: I enjoyed reading about the year 2000 for you--transcontinental trips bringing you to new countries for each meal and suitcases stuffed with foods customs wouldn't allow. Much has been written and discussed about the differences between today's sample size models and plus-sized models. You wrote about how difficult it was for agents and designers to categorize you, especially when you were in between. I'm sure the answer to this is probably longer than an interview can allow, but do you think the modeling industry and modeling sizes will change?

SD: I think it's a chicken and egg thing because until each group takes responsibility for their own part in it, no, not really. As long as a curvy girl is held up as an anomaly, the whole thing is being perpetuated. When a curvy girl is no longer being hailed as different, we've made progress. I could talk about it for hours, but if one objects to very thin, unwell girls being used in advertising, then as a consumer, you have to make a first step. We've become a quite apathetic culture. It's all well to just talk about how horrified you are, but unless you do something and write to companies, then nothing really gets done.

LM: Like you, I've always loved food and, in fact, was a chubby child. I thought it was interesting when you suggested that your burgeoning interest in food would have been better suited in the court of Henry VIII. But based on what I've learned of the past couple centuries, I wonder, have women in any era had the societal implicit consent to indulge in food like men?

SD: Did you read the biography of Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire?

LM: No.

SD: It's a great biography. The times they were living in--the late 1700s--were very different. So much of what they did focused around eating, they were much rounder, and fashion was much more forgiving with the empire waist dresses. A curvier form was more celebrated. I think there have been moments where that is true. I think we're not in one. What do you think?

LM: During this past century, fashion has always encouraged a svelte figure. In the 19th century, small waists were considered attractive enough that women wore constricting corsets. I watched A Philadelphia Story again the other day, and I was struck by how thin Katherine Hepburn was in a bathing suit.

SD: You're right, the models in the past century have always been thin, back to the women Avedon was shooting in the 50s and Irving Penn. They were like ballet dancers. In that regard, not much has changed. I guess each generation gets outraged and forgets what's gone on before.

LM: That's true. Everyone loves to forget history. When you came to New York, you mention American biology classes that warn about the dangers of anorexia. But considering the dangers of obesity in the US today, I wonder if nutrition should be taught in biology? You briefly mention Jamie Oliver and the progress he's made at schools. His television show Jamie's Food Revolution was incredible and eye opening. What do you think of the future of food education or the importance of combating obesity in children?

SD: I think it's seriously important and it's as much of an issue, if not more now, than the other side of anorexia. Again, it all boils down to balance. I think these things should be taught in a balanced way and not in a hysterical way. I know that here in England, the schools do teach nutrition, and place an emphasis on food and where it comes from; it's something that should be imprinted from an early age.

LM: I do feel that's one area in which England is ahead of the US. They seem to have more programs in place for that.

SD: It's an exciting time to be here because there's a host of slow food supporters, amazing green markets, and conversations about the carbon footprint of food. In cosmopolitan cities in the US, you can find healthy food, but the further out you get, the more difficult it becomes. In England, it's not the same.

Another difference between New York and London is that I notice so many people are cooking at home in London where the whole take-out culture is much less. When you're thinking about where your food comes from and you know what's going into it, there starts to be a sort of consciousness about food. When you're always eating food on the run or getting takeout, because you haven't been involved in the preparation, you don't think about it as much. Part of the joy of cooking is going through that process of what goes with what and the whole alchemy of that which you miss out on if you don't get to do that.

LM: I appreciate the meals I cooked more than the meals I ate in a restaurant.

SD: There's a sense of pride in it. It's a bit like being a child and making your first cake or making something in art class. Even if it doesn't quite turn out right, you still made the effort.

LM: I completely agree with you. Last question, to bring it back to the people, you've said that people feel unburdened to speak to you about their own weight issues. I loved that you could talk indifferently about your own weight, like a collection of coats or clothes you've worn at different points in your life, and I feel it must have been incredibly difficult to learn to listen to your body, you say you learned to think of food as something your body needs, not as a faddish diet or counting calories. Do you have any advice for people who are looking to find peace with food?

SD: I think the first thing to be is to have a sense of humor about it and to be kind. The moment you start punishing yourself, that's where it gets way off base. I was talking to my sister about it last night. She was saying, if I have one piece of cake, then I want all of it. I totally, totally recognize that, but when you become more comfortable with your body and you listen to your body, you learn. Culturally, women often reward themselves with food and say, because I'm on vacation I can have this. That's such a skewed way of thinking, because food shouldn't be something with which we reward ourselves; it should just be part of our daily life and not a battleground. I think I said in the VOGUE piece, food is inanimate. We give it such power and yet it's an inanimate thing. The moment one realizes that actually I'm the person in charge here and this isn't a battle between food and me, then it becomes a little easier.

LM: That sounds so simple, but that makes a lot of sense.

SD: It's probably easier said than done. The beginning of it is the simple fact that food is not the enemy.

LM: Those are very good words of advice to end on.

More on Recipes

Our bodies need fuel just like cars do. While we wouldn't dream of putting anything but the right gas in our cars for fear they would not run, many of us have the habit of putting things in our body that do not help us run well.

I remember as a teenager, my car was stalling and my dad figured out that it was some water in my tank. I was amazed at how much trouble a little bit of water could cause a big car. We had to put some liquid in the gas tank to take care of the problem.

There are examples of this in my life. I know I feel better when I eat vegetables, stay away from white flour and white sugar, deep fried foods and finish dinner by seven o' clock. I know I feel better when I remember to drink two to three cups of herbal tea a day. I feel better when I walk or bike or do some exercise, take a few quiet moments and get to bed by ten o'clock.

Do I have days where I eat things that lead me to feel tired, sluggish and downright stuffed? Yes. Do I eat late and feel tired the next morning when I could have structured my day better and felt better? Yes. Do I go entire days realizing I have not had one sip of water? Yes. Do I procrastinate exercise and sometimes do none? Do I stay up and make choices that run my system down unnecessarily?

I sometimes do not take the time to have the right "fuel" in my fridge and also choose to put the wrong "fuel" in my body. This actually causes me both physical and emotional stress because I don't feel well. Unfortunately, there is no magic liquid to make me run better instantly. Just better choices I can make.

So, this week, I am unplugging and relaxing by taking the time to feed my body real food -- with ingredients I can pronounce -- and to care for it with adequate sleep and exercise. So good so far.

What can you do to help your body run better?

For those of you love sweets, try my new cookbook, The Wholesome Junk Food Cookbook.

Also, I love talking about healthy food choices that taste great on my facebook page. Join the discussion!

Dr. Laura

More on Unplug And Recharge

Just  as in the case of George Rekers, not too many people are in the know about Robert Knight.

Knight has had a history as long as Rekers when it comes to demonizing and stigmatizing the lgbt community. Whereas Rekers created the junk science in the background, it was Knight standing in the foreground on the talk shows, in debates, and in front of Congress repeating the junk science.

Don't get your hopes up. I sincerely doubt that he will be caught in a scandal with a "luggage lifter" any time soon.

With Knight though, there is no need to look for hypocrisy in his personal life in order to cast doubt on his credibility. His words alone are enough to do that.

Gone are the days when Knight helped create anti-gay legislation as a member of the Family Research Council or repeated false data as a member of Concerned Women for America.

These days one can find Robert Knight spouting the same nonsense about lgbts but as a writer with Coral Ridge Ministries, a far cry from the limelight he once held:

This week, their (homosexual activists) target is the military. Soon, it will be passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would criminalize traditional morality in every workplace with 15 or more employees. After that, they will try to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, they aim to pass an "anti-bullying" law that will threaten schools with losing federal funds if they refuse to force kids to read Heather Has Two Mommies and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride. The agenda is breathtakingly ambitious, and would be unimaginable to previous generations.

These radical laws would be a watershed moment for socialists, who are at war with family and religion as impediments to a growing state. . .

To Knight, it's never about the fact that lgbts merely want the right to live and work freely unencumbered by people's religious beliefs or ignorant stereotypes. To him, it's all about a nefarious plot to destroy "traditional values."

It's a talking point that Knight should be used to. This is what he said in 2003 about Nashville's attempt to add sexual orientation to its non-discrimination code:

Few public officials and businessmen realize that when they allow the addition of "sexual orientation" to their nondiscrimination codes, they are tying their own hands when it comes to objecting to:

· A man in a highly visible sales job coming to work in a dress and high heels;

· A woman in a highly visible position coming to work in men's clothes;

· A person of indeterminate sex who insists on using either the men's room or the women's room;

· A person of either sex who indulges a taste for extreme sexual promiscuity and pornography during working hours despite being charged with representing the company's tone and character;

A man who frequents prostitutes while on business trips and claims that it is none of the company's business, regardless of the company's public image.

Also, according to the site Wired Strategies (see section called  Gays are diseased, die early, and are less productive than heterosexuals) Knight freely cited discredited researcher Paul Cameron in front of Congress in a past attempt to defeat the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):

"homosexual behavior is extremely unhealthy, contributing to the spread of AIDS, hepatitis A, B and C and other sexually transmitted diseases....A study of more than 6,400 obituaries in homosexual publications reveals that homosexuals typically have far shorter life spans than the general population. Other reports indicate that homosexuals are more likely to have drug and alcohol abuse problems. It is unfair to force businesses to pay the extra insurance expense and lost productivity that inevitably results from homosexual behavior." [Editors note: the source for this "research" is the discredited Dr. Paul Cameron - see below for extensive information about his extreme beliefs]

- Robert Knight, Family Research Council, testifying at ENDA Hearings, July 29, 1994 - committee on Labor and Human Resources, US Senate.

Knight's newest column can be viewed as infuriating if it weren't so pitiful. Usually when someone tries a comeback, he does something new instead of the same old stale nonsense.

But I guess when lies are all you have, you really can't do anything else.

Today, as we honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, we must recommit ourselves to providing economic opportunity for our brave veterans once they return home.

Each day in Washington, I work to make sure that our troops and veterans receive all the benefits they have earned - from first-rate health care at the VA, to an affordable college education, low interest loans to buy a home and good opportunities for a new job when they've returned home to their families. It's the least we can do to repay the debt we owe them.

But these days, when our troops return from Iraq and Afghanistan, so often they are coming home to a country far different than the one they left. Many of the businesses they once knew and worked at are gone. Jobs have disappeared by the millions and are only very slowly starting to return.

As a result, more than 1 in 5 veterans today are unemployed. It is simply unacceptable that these hardworking, devoted men and women, who have done their job for America abroad, cannot find a new job back home.

It is time to get serious about creating jobs for these brave men and women who are ready to work.

So last week, I was proud to announce the Veterans Employment Act of 2010 -- landmark legislation that takes a comprehensive approach to addressing the skyrocketing unemployment rate among veterans. I believe our veterans are uniquely qualified to succeed in the 21st century economy and this bill will help veterans translate their military skills to the workplace, assist veteran-owned small businesses and provide the training and education -- as well as increased opportunities -- our vets need to succeed at the jobs of tomorrow.

Specifically, this legislation:

· Establishes a Veteran Business Center Program within the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide critical entrepreneurial training and counseling to veterans.

· Expands the Post-9/11 GI Bill to allow returning veterans to use the benefit for apprenticeship and worker training programs that will help them acquire the skills they need to find stable, family-wage jobs in their communities.

· Creates pilot programs to test ways transitioning service members can build on the technical skills learned in the military and better market those skills in the civilian workforce.

· Establishes a Veterans Conservation Corps Grant Program and a Veterans Energy/Green Jobs Grant Program to connect veterans with the green jobs market of the future.

Additionally, The Veterans Employment Act also takes steps to make current job assistance programs work better for veterans.

· Examines the expansion of the National Guard Employment Enhancement Project (NGEEP), which would provide transition assistance to National Guard members.

· Requires the Department of Defense and the Department of Labor Veterans Employment and Training Service to examine the Transition Assistance Program for active duty servicemembers and recommend how to update and upgrade the program to meet the needs of today's veterans.

New York has a long, proud tradition of answering the call of service. Our state is home to more than 1 million veterans, and over 60,000 servicemen and women serving today. All have answered a call above and beyond any other, and we owe them a debt of gratitude for their service and sacrifice.

As I said in my acceptance speech at the NYS Democratic convention last week, we have a moral obligation to provide for our veterans when they return home. This is about fairness and opportunity and that's why I'm committed, not just today, but every day, to make sure our veterans can provide for themselves and their families when they return home from serving their country.

More on Careers

On March 4, 1865, with the Civil War finally approaching a victorious conclusion, Abraham Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address. Rather than satisfy the audience's thirst for celebration and revenge, Lincoln gave a sermon on the meaning of the war, suggesting that it was God's punishment to both North and South for slavery. He also asked all Americans to forgive their enemies, who were, of course, other Americans - "[W]ith malice toward none, with charity for all" - so as to "bind up the nation's wounds."

Regarded by many now as perhaps the greatest of all inaugural addresses, it was not regarded that way at the time. Lincoln expected this. Writing less than two weeks later to New York politician and long-time supporter, ThurlowWeed, Lincoln acknowledged that "I believe it is not immediately popular" but that "It is a truth which I thought needed to be told."

It is hard to imagine a modern president so forcefully telling the nation a truth they do not want to hear, especially one that puts them at fault and asks of them a sacrifice that runs directly counter to their passions. Indeed, Gerald Ford may be the last president who did so when he pardoned and asked the nation to forgive Richard Nixon.

When Americans select a president, they demand integrity. They should. It is an essential ingredient of leadership character. Yet presidents struggle with whether and how to tell the truth - and can pay a costly price for doing so.

In current debates on everything from the war on terrorism to health care to climate change to economic recovery, a frequent public claim is that leaders are not telling the truth. For their part, as they scan polls and schedule town hall meetings, leaders are not sure if their publics can handle the truth. When hearing the truth is difficult, truth telling is also difficult. Until this dangerous dance ends, we will continue to bury real issues and avoid hard choices.

To blame presidents alone for failing to be truthful, however, is to misdiagnose the problem. Leading a nation is not just a matter of the president's character. Character in a president may be a necessary condition to national well-being, but it is not a sufficient one. Character in the people is equally necessary. We must attend to our character not just a politician's.

That does not mean a president cannot play a significant role in shaping the nation's character. There are examples of such leaders, and we can learn from them.

Some might argue that Lincoln is not a fair example - after all, he had just gotten himself re-elected. But he did have a lot to lose. Barely a month later, in showing that he meant what he said to an audience outside the White House, he set lenient terms for previously rebellious states to come back into "their practical relation to the union" and signaled his willingness to open the franchise to educated black soldiers. One of his listeners told a friend that "That's the last speech he'll ever make." That listener was John Wilkes Booth.

In both telling a truth and demanding a sacrifice from his audience, Lincoln met two essential conditions to help shape national character. He asked citizens to confront reality, and he expected them to live up to the best in their human nature. He demanded they take responsibility for what they had helped create. And he believed they could do so. He acted as if they already had moral character.

George Washington understood this as well when he sought to embody in his own behavior as president the virtue he found essential to the success of the republican experiment. In his Farewell Address, still read aloud (but perhaps not quite absorbed) in the Senate each year, he reminded Americans of their responsibilities as citizens to preserve the union, dampen the danger of factions, obey the Constitution, and take up the mantle of leadership he was laying down. He appealed to their duty and honor.

Lincoln and Washington subscribed to the belief that leaders have an obligation to educate, to share their own hard-thought conclusions on public issues and to invite the nation to become learners. They also believed that you build character by expecting the public to rise to challenges and the demands of virtue. Modern leaders, it seems, worry more about how much they can expect the public to tolerate and so, in the end, expect too little.

But history has verified the wisdom of Washington, Lincoln and Ford. The public character did respond, if not readily then ultimately. Washington defined the demands of citizenship, and they still serve as a guide to both the politicians who read his Address and to Americans who have integrated those demands into their political culture. Grant and Lee acted immediately on Lincoln's call for magnanimity, and eventually, though clearly quite belatedly, so did generations of Americans who forged a more inclusive nation. Many more Americans now understand and admire Ford's pardon and see his wisdom in helping the country heal.

Forging character is never easy, and we cannot afford to rely on presidents alone. The republican experiment is being tested again. Americans know the problems they face. They know that they cannot expect solutions without healthy and respectful debate nor without finding ways to pay for them that do not place the burden on their children and grandchildren. They know they must compromise to preserve national unity. They know that their fellow citizens are people of basically good will, not demons in partisan disguise. They know that shouting about problems is not the same thing as fixing them. And they know that it is unhealthy to continue to punish leaders who tell us the truth and expect us to accept responsibility. What we need is leaders who ask us to admit what we know - and act responsibly on that knowledge.

It's time to give our presidents some help. It's not just about their character; it's about ours. Our public character is there, sometimes masked from our own best selves. Lincoln pleaded in his First Inaugural that we bring forth "the better angels of our nature." The nation ignored him for too many years. We should not repeat that mistake again.

CHICAGO — The day before Rod Blagojevich's world came crashing down, he stood before the TV cameras confident and defiant, as always, declaring he had nothing to hide, even as a giant political scandal was about to engulf him.

"If anybody wants to tape my conversations, go right ahead," said the boyish, helmet-haired governor, looking jaunty in a black leather jacket and turtleneck.

As it turns out, the feds had done just that.

The next morning, FBI agents woke him with a phone call, then led him from his house in handcuffs. And so began a bizarre, 18-month melodrama expected to culminate Thursday in Blagojevich's trial, where he stands accused, among other things, of trying to trade or sell President Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat – for personal gain.

In the year and a half since his arrest, Rod Blagojevich has lost his job and become a political pariah and a comic punch line. But he's maintained the bravado that defined him as governor with repeated declarations of innocence that are vintage Blago: Confrontational. In the limelight. Never giving an inch.

"There has always been a damn-the-torpedoes aspect to his personality," says state Rep. John Fritchey, a friend-turned-critic.

That's been obvious as the impeached governor has turned notoriety into celebrity, popping up everywhere: Early morning radio, late-night TV. On stage with Second City comic actors lampooning him. At a block party where the avid Elvis fan crooned one of The King's songs (and sort-of swiveled his hips).

And most recently, Blagojevich, now 53, was on "The Celebrity Apprentice," where he seemed baffled by a computer, and was, for the second time in a year, fired.

"I think people are intrigued by him, fascinated by him," claims Glenn Selig, a Florida-based publicist who has transformed Blagojevich into a cottage industry.

So is it wise for Blagojevich to be clowning around while facing serious charges?

"Of course, there's always a worry how you come out," says Selig, who notes Blagojevich has turned down offers he deemed inappropriate. "I think he has a great sense of humor and he's willing to laugh at himself. ... Self-deprecation is not necessarily a bad thing. He's the real deal."

Those who've followed Blagojevich's career have another view.

"His ego won't allow him to give up the stage," says Kent Redfield, a professor emeritus of politics at the University of Illinois-Springfield. "He has this supreme confidence in his ability to win people over. He believes he has a personal charm and brilliance that can single-handedly overcome anything."

"He's at his best when he's railing against something," Redfield adds. "He sees himself as being on the side of good and thinks others are trying to do him in. The act seems to be the same. He's just changed the audience."

And that audience has heard some strange things.

He told Esquire magazine he was "blacker than Barack Obama," then quickly apologized.

He called federal prosecutors "cowards and liars" and challenged U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to be "man enough" to meet him in court.

"He wants to have a duel in the sun," says Paul Green, a political science professor at Roosevelt University. "If he had a leather glove, he would walk up to Fitzgerald and slap him across the face."

Blagojevich's loose-lipped style prompted one of his lawyers to quit. But some former associates wonder if the ex-governor is playing to potential jurors – the endless patter, the reasoning goes, would show he's full of political bluster, not criminal intent.

Blagojevich has his own explanation.

"I ... have this need to tell everyone and anyone who would listen that I didn't do anything wrong and that I am innocent of any criminal wrongdoing ... ," he wrote in "The Governor." "It is unbearable to sit silently back and not assert the truth. And your innocence."

Blagojevich maintains he wasn't trying to sell or trade Obama's Senate seat. On one tape, though, it seems he has no intention of giving it away: "I've got this thing, and it's (bleeping) golden," he says.

He claims he planned to appoint Lisa Madigan, the state's attorney general, to the seat. In exchange, her father, House Speaker Michael Madigan, his nemesis, would push through a public works bill the governor wanted – a routine political deal.

Both Madigans say that's news to them.

Blagojevich later appointed Roland Burris, creating a new furor when the newly named senator repeatedly changed his story about his contact with the governor's friends and aides before he was chosen.

Blagojevich – a veteran of a few Golden Gloves bouts – has long fashioned himself a fighter for the little guy. Now his opponent is the U.S. government.

So who is Milorad "Rod" Blagojevich?

He sees his life as the American dream that unraveled into a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions: The son of a Serbian steelworker, he was raised in a blue-collar family, shined shoes, delivered pizzas, attended law school, became an assistant prosecutor. He climbed the political ladder, he says, only to fall victim to betrayal and jealousy.

In his book, he claims a spiritual kinship with a dizzying array of people:

Martha Stewart (like him, he says, a target of prosecutors). Jake LaMotta, as depicted by Robert DeNiro in "Raging Bull" (they trusted the wrong people). And George Bailey, the fictional small-town everyman in "It's a Wonderful Life" (both had awakenings).

Blagojevich critics say, though, if comparisons are to be made, it's to the rogue's gallery of politicians who've polluted state government.

Blagojevich replaced George Ryan, who left office in disgrace; he's now serving a 6 1/2-year racketeering sentence. In his first inaugural, Blagojevich vowed to "govern as a reformer." But instead of cleaning up the quagmire of corruption in Illinois, opponents say, he ended up waist-deep in it.

Blagojevich's political career – as is often the case in Chicago – began with family connections. His wife, Patti, is the daughter of Richard Mell, one of the last of a dying breed of Chicago Machine ward bosses who can marshal an army of precinct captains and deliver the vote on Election Day.

"Let me put it like this – he would never have gotten out of the dugout into the batter's box if not for Dick Mell," says Green, the political scientist.

Mell tapped his son-in-law for the state legislature. Blagojevich dived right in, rallying his precinct captains with Shakespeare's "band of brothers" speech from "Henry V."

After four years in the legislature, Blagojevich won the congressional seat once held by Dan Rostenkowski, former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

In his first gubernatorial bid, Blagojevich showed that beneath that Beatle-bob (circa '65) of hair – he always liked to have a hairbrush handy – there was the brain of a shrewd politician with a populist's touch.

"He's personable," Green says. "He speaks well on his feet. He's good-looking. ... And he was able to raise an awful lot of money."

He – or maybe a strategist – also understood how to count votes.

In the first Democratic primary – his only close race – Blagojevich faced Paul Vallas, widely praised for improving the troubled Chicago public schools as CEO. Knowing Vallas would be a tough opponent in the city, Blagojevich bombarded the far reaches of rural Illinois with TV ads, stressing his humble roots.

It worked.

Blagojevich was elected in 2002, but had his eye on a bigger prize: the White House.

Democrats were thrilled to have one of their own in the governor's chair for the first time in 26 years. The honeymoon was brief. Blagojevich soon made enemies – Democrats and Republicans. He was an eager campaigner but, some say, he was bored with the nitty-gritty of governing.

"He enjoyed the sexy part of government, the glad-handing, the attention of followers," says Fritchey, the state lawmaker. "But at a certain point, you've got to get out of campaign mode and into governing. That's where he had difficulty."

Blagojevich immediately angered folks outside Chicago when he refused to move to the governor's mansion in Springfield; he says he didn't want to uproot his two young daughters. Critics says he was a fleeting presence in the capital, and when he was around, he didn't exactly dig in.

"His lack of attention to details and his work ethic were mind-boggling," says State Sen. Kirk Dillard, a veteran Republican lawmaker. "He didn't seem to want to make any difficult decisions."

Lou Lang, another Democratic state representative, says he was antagonistic.

"He went out of his way to offend legislators ... to blame them for all the ills of Illinois," Lang says. "He did all sorts of things to evade us, to do end runs, to stick it to us. He ran Illinois by press conference."

Blagojevich claims he's a "big picture" guy, not a detail man. In his book, he insists he didn't want to be "slowed down by having to spend my time mired in a bureaucracy that could be like quicksand."

But the man who says he wanted to avoid "petty squabbles" found himself in name-calling exchanges with lawmakers. They said he broke his word. He claimed it was lonely being governor. Tensions grew.

Once he ordered legislators to Springfield to vote on a critical transportation bill he wanted, then ended up attending a Chicago Blackhawks game 175 miles away. The measure was defeated.

He called lawmakers into special session so often they stopped coming. Then he sued House leader Madigan for not ordering them to attend. He won.

And when a new tax proposal he offered was defeated in the House by a 107-0 vote, he inexplicably declared "things went pretty well today."

For all his problems, his dreams of the White House endured until the 2004 Democratic National Convention when Obama was tapped to be the keynoter – a star-making turn launching him on the path to the presidency.

Blagojevich, some recall, repeatedly joked how he was chosen to speak at 3 a.m.

"He realized not only was he not going to be the golden boy of the Democratic Party nationally, but he had been jumped over by a state senator from his own state," Fritchey says. "For a man who fancied himself the next JFK, Obama's pick to give the keynote address was devastating."

Still, Blagojevich, bolstered by a Democratic majority, racked up a list of accomplishments, even as the deficit more than doubled to $11 billion during his tenure.

He raised the minimum wage (angering some business groups), provided state-subsidized health insurance to every child in Illinois, banned discrimination of gays and lesbians, increased education spending, won approval to expand preschool and increased mammogram and cervical cancer screening for uninsured women.

"He did a lot of good," says Clifford Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now is a talk show host on a black radio station and has welcomed Blagojevich as a guest. "Once two ladies called to thank him for saving their lives" with mammograms, he says. "I really think he cares about people."

By 2006 when he was facing re-election, Blagojevich already was under increasing scrutiny by the feds.

Agents were investigating patronage hiring and reports that money management firms were being squeezed to come up with payoffs and campaign cash if they wanted the lucrative business of investing state teachers pension money.

Blagojevich's relationship with Dick Mell, his father-in-law, also had soured. Mell had made an explosive claim that a Blagojevich adviser was arranging state appointments in exchange for campaign cash.

Mell retracted his accusation. Blagojevich blamed it on a dispute they were having over a landfill.

None of it dampened Blagojevich's fundraising.

He spent more than $26 million on his re-election (both the primary and general contests), compared with about $9 million for his Republican opponent, Judy Baar Topinka, then the state treasurer. He portrayed her as a crony of Ryan, the convicted ex-governor, and breezed to a second term.

She says she was overwhelmed by Blagojevich's TV ad blitz.

"I used to be stunned – he could raise $2, $3, $4 million in a night," Topkina says. "If we made $5-to-$10,000, we thought we were doing well. I played by the rules, he didn't."

Topinka is referring to another part of the allegations – that Blagojevich engaged in so-called pay-to-play politics, illegally pressuring potential contributors, including the head of a children's hospital.

"It's so embarrassing," Topinka says. "If you say you're from Illinois, people know about Rod Blagojevich in the worst possible way. They think we're a bunch of doofuses. How could we have elected someone like that? Not just once – but twice."

Blagojevich plans to testify at his trial, one more step in his high-profile campaign. Will it succeed?

"I don't know if it's a plan or it's just goofy," Green says. "No one knows. I don't know if HE knows, but he didn't get this far by just being frivolous. And if it does work, he's a genius ... and I guarantee you he'll run for office again – as a victim."

___

Sharon Cohen, a national writer for The Associated Press based in Chicago, can be reached at features(at)ap.org.

It's past time that Social Security's advocates, friends and beneficiaries quit playing defense for the single most popular American program, and take the offensive against those who attack and lie about Social Security with intent to kill it.

First, find out if you have an IRA or other retirement saving accounts with a bank or brokerage or investment house that has been calling for the privatization of Social Security, if so, transfer the account (without penalty) and tell the broker why. My broker/financial adviser with Merrill Lynch, is a champion of Social Security as a necessary and dependable leg of one's retirement income. Ask your broker/financial adviser where he/she stands on Social Security privatization, i.e., changing it from pension and disability insurance into millions of 401(k)s subject to the rock and roll of the stock market.

If you're affluent enough to have invested with the Blackstone group, transfer your money elsewhere. The hedge fund, whose trade in funny money helped bring on this recession, was founded by Billionaire Peter Peterson, who retains an interest in the firm and spends millions through his various foundations to undermine Social Security with the claim that the program and the benefits for the undeserving elderly population's are bankrupting the nation.

Second, Social Security advocate organizations and politically active beneficiaries and older members can join in the new effort by the National Academy of Social Insurance to expand Social Security to resume the coverage of 22-year-old students, especially the disadvantaged, which was ended in 1981, when Social Security was in imminent financial danger.

Such an expansion could dovetail with the new health insurance forms, which mandates coverage on their parents' policy for children up to age 25. And it would not only help these families and kids pay for college, but it would strengthen the Social Security system with support from the young, which has been eroding as too many the mainstream media buy into the Peterson nonsense that Social Security is in financial trouble. It isn't.

Indeed the 75-year-old program, which is in the black for another 30 years even if nothing is done, will outlast Blackstone as it has outlasted Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns. Enron, Eastern Airlines and the Pennsylvania Rail Road, a few recessions and lots of wars..

During those years, Social Security has never defaulted on a payment. Indeed it expanded to cover the disabled and the spouses and children survivors of beneficiaries who died before age 66, like those killed on 9/11. And since the fixes of 1983-4 by the Reagan administration and Alan Greenspan's commission, Social Security has run a surplus every year, enough to guarantee benefits for the huge boomer generation. Even this year and next when high unemployment forces the program to pay out more than it takes in in payroll taxes, Social Security will still run surpluses of more than $100 million.

That should lead defenders to their main point, which they should repeat like a mantra: Aside from its administrative costs, Social Security's benefits for 50 million Americans does not contribute even one dollar to the federal deficit. Let me repeat for reporters who are too lazy to understand Social Security: Aside from its relatively small administrative costs (which are in the Social Security Administration's Budget), Social Security adds nothing to the deficit.

In fact, Social Security earns around $700 million a year financing the federal debt by selling the Treasury its low-interest special issue bonds. Social Security could solve its long term fiscal problem if it could sell the government higher-interest bonds. But, of course, that would raise the deficit.

Ignoramuses suggest that these bonds in Social Security's West Virginia vaults are nothing more than "worthless IOUs." As the Chinese, Japanese and other investors know, U.S. IOUs are as good as cash. Indeed, if you examine your paper money, or your employer's check, they are IOUs, until you spend or cash them out. If the IOUs were "worthless," why would Peterson and his greedy Wall Street and hedge fund., investment banking allies be so eager to get their hands on the $2.5 trillion in Social Security bonds? What a tasty dish to set before the kings in their counting houses!

A friend at AARP says it will do no good to bash billionaires; I disagree for their message, backed by their money and the megaphone of the media, conservative Democrats in the Congress and the hysteria over the deficit, has undermined support for Social Security and Medicare. And AARP has not been aggressive in helping to challenge Peterson and his deficit hawk allies who have been given aid and comfort by the administration which was bullied into creating the anti-Social Security commission on the deficit.

Fortunately, the latest defense and offense on behalf of Social Security has come from a definitive report on the future of the program , prepared with the help of the Congressional Budget Office, and published by the Senate Special Committee on aging.

The seemingly alarming news is that Social Security faces a $5.3 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years. But the committee chairman, Sen. Herbert Kohl (D., Wis.) echoes the current conclusion of Alan Greenspan, the Academy of Social Insurance and nearly every other expert, that the shortfall could be fixed with what Kohl called "tweaks."

For Kohl and most advocates, cutting benefits is not an option, nor is reducing the criteria for the mandates cost of living (COLA) raises. And Kohl rejects the report's suggestion that the future fiscal problems could be solved by raising the retirement age from 66 to 70. That would solve only 30 percent of the shortfall, and would delay and thus rob millions of workers of the benefits they now expect and count on. Besides, many blue collar workers in tough, physically demanding jobs should not be required to work until 70; a coal miner may not be able to keep working after 66.

There are more likely alternatives, which are obvious and simple: As the Social Security Trustees' conservative outlook for the future reported last year, a 1.1 percent raise in the worker's and employer's payroll tax (now at 6.2 percent each) would wipe out the shortfall for 75 years. The trustees, incidentally, base their estimates on 1,5 percent, annual growth in the GDP , which is far less than the past years.

More popular with the Obama administration, if Congress abolished the $106,800 cap on the wages subject to payroll taxes, the entire $5.3 trillion shortfall would disappear. Obama has suggested raising the cap to $250,00. Interestingly, several of the nation's more honorable billionaires, like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, junior and senior, have called for an end to the cap, noting that they are paying no more in Social Security taxes than a well-paid secretary.

As far as I know, they do not hold that Social Security's assets should be put up for grabs on Wall Street. But then Buffet and the Gates helped create wealth and something tangible, instead of a house of paper that collapsed.

You can see the Aging Committee's information as well the views of advocates at www.aging.senate.gov. And you may read or download the full report at http://www.aging.senate.gov/letters/ssreport2010.pdf

Write to saulfriedman@comcast.net Friedman also writes for www.timegoes.by.net

Good morning everyone and happy Memorial Day weekend and welcome to your Sunday Morning liveblog of British Petroleum PR and politicksery! But WAIT? What am I doing here? Aren't I supposed to be taking a well-earned weekend off, something everyone either says I "totally deserve" or else waxes sentimentally, "Good, because you are terrible and your liveblogs are terrible and I hate you, and them!"

Well, yes, I was. But a planned trip to New Jersey has to scrapped at the last minute, owing to some illness. So, as much as I'd like to tweak the Northern sensibilities of the good people Denville, NJ by attending their barbecues and sipping on some Red Blazers and gettin' my whole lean on, we decided it would be best for health and wellness to not spend any time on the New Jersey Turnpike, and instead chill at home.

And yeah, I could have just not liveblogged today all the same, but I felt duty bound to try, given the fact that me and my laptop and my TiVo were all together. (Besides, I'm just going to want to beg off doing this some weekend in the future, right? I am no monument to virtue!)

Anyway, I did decide to catch an extra hour of sleep this morning, so there's that, anyway. So, there you have it: unexpected liveblog! Feel free to comment the hell out of this thing, or send an email, and if you want a long string on unrelated thoughts on everything coupled with inside jokes you won't understand, BAM: TWITTER. Okay, let's get on with this.

THIS WEEK

[Hi. If you don't see any liveblog here yet, maybe something terrible has happened, and you should seek shelter at your local community center! Or maybe it's not yet written yet. I guess the choice to panic or remain calm is yours.]

More on Meet the Press

If you are like most people these days, you are plugged into everything from the time you get up in the morning to the moment you unplug the light and drift off--hopefully--into blissful sleep.

But is this constant saturation of activity and overbooking taking a toll on your health and happiness?

One of the most common problems among busy people, is that they feel fatigued, anxious or depressed. Most of them share a common underlying problem: adrenal burnout.

Adrenal Burnout

Adrenal burnout is the result of living with a constantly aroused sympathetic nervous system--living in a perpetual state of "fight or flight."

In adrenal burnout, your body overproduces adrenaline, cortisol and other stress hormones. Eventually, this causes your adrenal glands--your front line stress defense--to become depleted.

This can lead to a barrage of negative health consequences--including:

• Impaired immune function and less resistance to infections
• Increased blood pressure and cholesterol
• Weight gain
• Unstable blood sugar levels
• Hormone imbalance
• Insomnia
• Unstable moods, depression, and anxiety

And the list goes on.

The solution? You must find a way to recharge.

There are many ways to unplug from your busy routine. But the most elemental requirement for recharging your battery is addressing your body's basic needs for sleep, exercise and nutrition--because without addressing those, your body won't be able to reboot, regardless of how many breaks you take from your routine.

Paying Off Your Sleep Debt

The first thing you may need to address is a good night's rest.

Sleep deprivation is such a chronic condition these days that you might not even realize you suffer from it. If you've shorted yourself on quantity or quality of sleep for any length of time, it's likely sleep deprivation feels normal to you.

As a general rule, adults need between six and nine hours of sleep a night.
A sleep deficit can have serious, far-reaching effects on your health, such as:

• A weakened immune system
• Changes in brain activity similar to those experienced by people with psychiatric disorders
• Putting your body into a pre-diabetic state, so you feel hungry even if you've already eaten

If you feel tired when you first wake up, you probably aren't getting sufficient sleep. It's best to observe how you feel immediately upon waking rather than after you're up and moving around.
Sleep is one of your most precious resources--don't undervalue its importance to your longevity and quality of life.

Recharge Your Battery With Exercise

For decades, I have been a huge advocate of exercise as a critical component of staying healthy. Exercise can do a number of wonderful things for your health from improving memory and problem solving, to lifting your mood and preventing depression, to actually slowing down the aging process.

And it can improve your sleep as well!

Adding an exercise program to your routine five to six days a week will improve your energy, and will likely increase your productivity for the rest of the day.

Grab an exercise buddy and go to the gym, or simply take a walk. Try a variety of things until you find activities that you find enjoyable.

Increase intensity of your exercise gradually--you don't have to compete with anyone but yourself.

Be sure your exercise routine contains the four principle components--aerobic (cardio), anaerobic (interval), strength training, and core exercises. Variety is key.

Retool Your Fuel

If you put inferior gas in your car, it runs poorly. The same is true for your body.
There is no one-size-fits-all diet that will work for everyone because your physiological makeup is unique. Each person's body processes carbohydrates, proteins and fats differently based on genetic background.

There are three basic nutritional types: protein type, carbohydrate type and mixed type, and determining which type you are is a simple matter of completing a questionnaire, then refining your food selections as you go, based on how they make you feel after eating.

Even the most health-challenged people can really turn their health around by changing their diets to more closely fit their nutritional type. But regardless of which type you are, there are six basic guidelines that offer benefits for all types:

1. Eat as much fresh, organic raw food as possible (at least one third of your intake), particularly vegetables.

2. Eliminate processed food, junk food, soda, sweetened drinks, sports/energy drinks, and all artificial sweeteners from your diet.

3. Eliminate gluten as most people have some degree of intolerance or allergy to it. This includes wheat, rye, barley, spelt, etc.

4. Radically reduce your sugar consumption, and stay away from products containing high concentrations of fructose, such as high fructose corn syrup.

5. Drink plenty of pure, filtered water every day.

6. Don't skip meals.

If you want to read more about your specific nutritional type, I'd refer you to my complete nutrition plan.

Who's Got Time?

You might be asking yourself, "If I can't find the time to take a bathroom break during the day, how am I going to make time to cook organically, start up a new exercise program, and go to bed earlier?"

The time you devote to your basic nutritional and exercise needs will be time well spent, because when your body has the basic building blocks it needs, you suddenly find yourself with bursts of energy you never had before.

And more energy means you'll get more done with the time you have.

So, while it may seem burdensome to have to add to your already packed schedule, these activities will actually buy you time in the long run. After all, if you're sleep deprived, you're not as productive as when you're rested. And, nothing clears the cobwebs out of your brain like an hour of sustained aerobic exercise.

If you need to cut something out in order to squeeze the basics back in, then perhaps it's time to re-prioritize.

Simple things like a few dietary changes, improved sleep habits, and a more consistent exercise routine can really produce MAJOR changes in your health and energy level, and prevent your adrenal glands from getting toasted.
Try it and see!

In today's culture of speed and complexity, it is easy to overlook the importance of the basics for health and longevity. Before all others, these essential factors must be addressed.

More on Unplug And Recharge