Beginning July 18, Meet the Bloggers will be a daring new show broadcast LIVE over the internet each Friday at 1PM ET. And the best part is this show is all yours. You will be part of creating the show, telling us what questions we should ask our high-profile guests; what issues we should be talking about; and what actions should be taken. You can also interact with other audience members using a live blog and instant polls.

I’m really looking forward to this.

It seems that Arianna Huffington has run up against the impenetrable wall that is Tim Russert’s ego. Huffington, who is currently on tour for her new book Right Is Wrong: How The Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded The Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, will be appearing on CNN, ABC, and CBS. She had been booked on Morning Joe and Countdown with Keith Olbermann as well, but those bookings were suddenly and inexplicably cancelled.

NBC confirmed that Huffington wouldn’t be booked on any NBC-affiliated show to promote her book, but refused to explain why. Huffington’s people say that this is Tim Russert’s doing, that Russert is out for revenge because Huffington called him a “conventional wisdom zombie” in her book and devoted seven pages to faulting Russert for allowing his Meet the Press guests to go unchallenged (not to mention HuffPo’s RussertWatch).

Reid said he would consider writing a joint letter with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) demanding that superdelegates make their endorsements public.

“The three of us, we may write a joint letter [to superdelegates],” said Reid. “We might do individual letters, we are in contact with each other.”…

However, when asked by a reporter if he would be forced to intervene if the undecided superdelegates did not make up their minds, Reid replied “I might have to.”

At this point even I, someone that’s strongly interested in politics, am eager to arrive at a resolution. So, yes, please, pressure the so-called superdelegates to make up their mind long before the convention.

By placing such an emphasis on building a visually appealing brand, Obama is validating the importance of design in communication. This in turn builds support from the design community, who might feel that a design-conscious candidate best represents their personal beliefs

I don’t buy the notion that a voter that happens to be a designer by training and vocation would cast a vote based simply on whether a candidate demonstrated some sense of a design-consciousness.

Now, while I may take issue with the suggestion that anyone would base one’s support for a politician based on the design-consciousness of that candidate, I cannot deny the visual impact of the product that artists supporting Sen. Obama are turning out. Just check out these examples:

Genealogists: Sharpton’s Ancestors Were Slaves Owned By Strom Thurmond’s Family

NEW YORK —
Geneaologists have found that civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton is a descendent of a slave owned by relatives of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, a newspaper reported Sunday.

The Daily News said professional genealogists, working at the newspaper’s behest, recently uncovered the ancestral ties between one of the nation’s best known black leaders and a man who was once a prominent defender of segregation.

“I have always wondered what was the background of my family,” the newspaper quoted Sharpton as saying. “But nothing _ nothing _ could prepare me for this.”

“It’s chilling. It’s amazing.”

Some of Thurmond’s relatives said the connection also came as a surprise to them. A niece, Ellen Senter, said she would speak with Sharpton if he were interested.

1. Government is bad: Conservatives believe the Federal government is unnecessary, except for the military. They maintain that entitlements for the disadvantaged–the poor, elderly, and disabled–are counter-productive, as they foster dependency. Most Americans believe in the necessity for the Federal government and these entitlements. It’s the role of liberals to provide a new justification for government, in general.

2. Competence is overrated: Because conservatives don’t believe in government, they feel the only salient qualification for political office–such as President and Vice President–is ideological purity. As a result, the Bush White House has proved to be the most conservative and least competent Administration in modern political history. Liberals must insist that elected officials have a record of accomplishment; they should believe in working for the common good and know what they are doing.

3. Cutting taxes fixes everything: Beginning in 2001, the conservative Bush Administration reduced taxes, claiming this would reduce the size of the Federal government and a "rising tide would lift all boats." Instead, this ill-considered "panacea" created a record Federal debt and lifted only the yachts of the rich. Liberals need to roll back these tax cuts and take a stand for fiscal sanity.

4. The market will provide: Conservatives believe that, in the absence of Federal programs, the market will solve national problems. America’s healthcare crisis demonstrates that this is naïve: the market doesn’t care about problems that affect the average American. And, the market doesn’t respond to disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina. Liberals should argue that only government can solve certain national problems and resurrect the notion that government provides a "the safety net."

5. Our best foreign policy is a strong military: Even though the US has by far the largest Defense budget in the world, conservatives continue to lobby for billions of dollars for wasteful Pentagon projects. They argue that big is better, that America’s best defense is a strong military. They ignore the fact that our armed forces didn’t protect us on 9/11 and haven’t won the war in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Conservatives also argue that the military is our best instrument of foreign policy. It’s time for liberals to demand a complete review of our defense strategy and foreign policy.

6. The U.S. is at war: Since 9/11, conservatives have argued we’re engaged in a "war on terror." But we’re not. Terrorism isn’t a military campaign waged by countries that don’t like us; it’s a social disease that requires America to use a variety of means to combat extremists. Liberals need to stop calling this a war and begin lobbying for a balanced campaign that includes diplomacy and use of police and intelligence resources.

7. Don’t ask questions: President Bush has consistently argued that it’s not necessary to understand why terrorists want to attack us, all that’s required is knowing they "hate our freedom." However, most experts on terrorism argue that terrorists have readily understandable motives, and we can head off future attacks by understanding what these motives are: for example, they want us to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord.

8. Trust the Commander-in-chief: Since 9/11, Bush and his conservative supporters have argued that the President, as commander-in-chief, has special responsibilities that obviate the necessity for the balance-of-powers logic in the Constitution: because the US is at "war" the President is above the law. Liberals need to attack this notion and roll back legislation that restricts our civil-rights.

9. America can go it alone: A cornerstone of conservative foreign policy is the belief that our allies are stupid and, therefore, don’t care if we act like bullies most of the time. The Bush Administration philosophy assumes that since the US has a bloated military, it doesn’t matter whether or not we use diplomacy or participate in international organizations. Conservatives believe that because America is big and powerful we can do whatever we want in the world: go it alone. Liberals need to point out that the strategy hasn’t proven successful, that it hasn’t built the alliances required to solve problems such as terrorism, AIDS, and global warming.

10. Winning is everything: Finally, the operating philosophy of conservatives has been that it doesn’t matter how you accomplish your objectives, just that you win: the ends justify the means. This has been the modus operandi of a conservative Bush Administration that lied to the American people. Liberals need to stand up for telling the truth, argue that Americans are governed by a morality that that values the common good, and places the public interest above personal ambition.

1. John Bolton’s resignation reflects a loss of ground by Jesse Helms’ inspired ‘pugnacious nationalists’. It is also a clear loss for Vice President Cheney and his loyal followers. Jim Lobe captures this quite well in a piece he has written tonight on Bolton.

2. Bolton’s resignation also hurts Condoleezza Rice in the short term because while she had to "manage" him more frequently than she liked — often sending Undersecretary for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns to manage the most fragile diplomatic agendas — Rice now has NO Deputy Secretary of State, and will soon face in January NO Counselor and NO Ambassador to the United Nations.

Losing Robert Zoellick, Philip Zelikow and John Bolton is an awful lot to lose without having clear successsors in place and ready to go. The already stretched thin Secretary of State will be stretched even thinner with Bolton’s departure.

3. On the good side, if the White House and State Department get their mutual acts together, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is ‘likely’ to expedite at lightning speed reasonable, even partly controversial, nominees to both Bolton’s UN position and to the Deputy Secretary position. This Bolton Battle won’t be replayed soon. I think the incoming Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden will bend over backwards to help Rice get a full team back in place at State as fast as possible.

4. This has not been picked up by the press, but I believe that the theatrical dimensions of the Bolton resignation were designed to make it look like the President was giving up something he really, really wanted in order to encourage Dems to ‘de-complexify’ the confirmation process of Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates. Watch for Dems who previously opposed Gates or had serious concerns about his Iran Contra involvement to ratchet down their concerns.

The President’s dropping of Bolton may very well be designed to facilitate a fast confirmation process for Gates.

5. Who will succeed Bolton is unclear. I have written about Jim Leach in the past — as well as many others including Paula Dobriansky and Zalmay Khalilzad.

I think Dobriansky has a strong chance of getting the job as she is respected around DC, is acceptable to both Rice and Cheney, and is not a complete rejection of John Bolton’s views. She is neocon-friendly if not a true neoconservative, and she manages diplomacy and achieving America’s diplomatic objectives well.

Jim Leach could also be extraordinary — and Khalilzad could be an important asset there too as a Muslim envoy from America to an institution representing the nations of the world. He is also a well-experienced strategist and diplomat.

There are other choices I won’t list here tonight as I think that these three are all qualified and realistic choices given the fact that George W. Bush is going to make the appointment.

6. Finally, it is important to remember that the Bolton Battle was not a true partisan struggle. It was one in which many Republicans covertly supported leading Democrats in the process — and on the other side, some Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Ben Nelson openly advocated Bolton’s confirmation.

Bolton did not get confirmed because of the failure of the White House to either unite the Republican caucus behind Bolton or to select a candidate that was easier for the whole Republican caucus in the Senate to accept. Republicans with a conscience stopped Bolton’s confirmation process, with support from the Democrats who were in the minority.