THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The positive trends from December didn't last: "The number of first-time claims for unemployment insurance payments jumped in the first week of 2011 to the highest level since October as more Americans lined up to file following the holidays."

* Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not only pressed Middle Eastern leaders on systemic reforms, she did so with rather blunt language. Speaking at a conference in Qatar, she said "their countries risked 'sinking into the sand' of unrest and extremism unless they liberalized their political systems and cleaned up their economies."

* Speaking of the Middle East, Vice President Biden made a surprise visit to Baghdad today, visiting with Iraqi officials and spending time with U.S. troops.

* I'm still amazed at the progress of Gabrielle Giffords' recovery: "G. Michael Lemole Jr., the hospital's chief neurosurgeon, and Peter Rhee, the head of emergency care, said Giffords since then has also been able to sit on the edge of her bed and dangle her legs over the side, move both of her arms and legs and open both of her eyes."

* Following a brief reprieve this week, House Republicans will move forward next week with their plan to repeal the entirety of the Affordable Care Act.

* On a related note, I'm not sure if "The Patient's Rights Repeal Act" is the best framing for House Dems, but I'm glad they're at least trying.

* Devastating mud slides in the mountains north of Rio de Janeiro have killed at least 355 people since yesterday.

* Jared Lee Loughner's court proceedings will be handled by a federal judge from California, after literally every district court judge in Arizona had to recuse themselves -- they all knew Judge John Roll, one of Loughner's victims.

* Daniel Luzer: "In the continuing saga of the Government Accountability Office report on for-profit colleges that was slightly exaggerated, a new paper commissioned by America's for-profit schools accuses the GAO of 'sloppy investigating.' But then, the for-profit paper (written by an Illinois research company) seems to be pretty sloppy too."

* The idea of having Democrats and Republicans sit intermixed during the State of the Union has some appeal, but Dan Amira offers a compelling case against it.

* Getting sworn in under unusually cold conditions in the Sooner State, Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) accidentally misspoke during her ceremony today. She solemnly swore to "support, obey, and offend" the Constitution, instead of "support, obey, and defend."

* There's just something amusing about the Republican National Committee having to raise its own debt ceiling.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

MUST WE PARSE THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'OPEN'?.... To the delight of the audience at last night's memorial service, President Obama told attendees last night that he'd just come from Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' (D-Ariz.) bedside. "And I want to tell you -- her husband Mark is here and he allows me to share this with you -- right after we went to visit, a few minutes after we left her room and some of her colleagues in Congress were in the room, Gabby opened her eyes for the first time," the president said.

In yet another disheartening display, some on the right would have us believe Obama wasn't telling the truth. He was, but the accusation itself is a reminder of just what's become of our discourse.

In one of the most cynical displays in recent memory, following the lead of Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft, several conservative websites -- including Fox Nation and MRC arm CNS News -- suggested that President Obama lied last night when he said that Rep. Giffords had opened her eyes for the first time shortly after his Wednesday night visit to the hospital.

In a recently-completed press conference, Giffords' doctor Peter Rhee explained that what Obama said last night about Giffords opening her eyes was "true."

Apparently, Giffords had previously opened her eyes in response to "stimulus" from physicians, but last night was the first time the congresswoman had done so voluntarily and spontaneously. In other words, Giffords opened her eyes on her own last night -- it was a development her neurosurgeon described today as "a major milestone."

The "lie" the right had uncovered wasn't a lie at all.

But stepping back, it's worth realizing how truly ridiculous the criticism from the right is even at face value. Obama had heartening news about a congresswoman who very nearly died, and that news happened to be true. For some conservatives, however, this was not only an opportunity to catch the president in some kind of "gotcha" moment -- an effort that proved wrong anyway -- but also to parse the meaning of the word "open."

Is the right really this desperate? Do they hang on the president's every word, wondering how to manipulate his every remark into some kind of cheap attack?

Good lord, these guys really need to grow up. This is just pathetic.

HOW BOEHNER SPENT HIS EVENING.... At first blush, the circumstances don't cast House Speaker John Boehner in an especially flattering light. The Ohio Republican chose not to attend the memorial service in Tucson last night, instead attending a cocktail party with members of the Republican National Committee. Also, President Obama offered Boehner a chance to travel to Tucson aboard Air Force One, but the Speaker declined.

Taken together, it doesn't look great. But Brian Beutler dug a little deeper and finds that Boehner probably doesn't deserve much in the way of heat on this.

Yesterday, House members attended a vigil for victims of the Arizona shooting spree in an auditorium underneath the Capitol Visitor's Center. As they trickled in, a House aide provided reporters, including me, a glimpse of the program of events and list of speakers. There was one small revision to the schedule, though: Minority Whip Steny Hoyer would be reading Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's portion of scripture, because she was on her way to Tucson with the President.

If Boehner had accepted the invitation, then the leaders of both parties would have missed the Wednesday vigil. [...]

Boehner's also getting knocked around a bit for what he decided to do while in DC: he attended an organizing event for Maria Cino, whom he's supporting to chair the RNC. But though that may have entailed chatting up donors over cocktails, Steel says he spoke for three minutes and left the event in time to watch Obama's speech on television. And while he plausibly could have made it out to Tucson separately in time for the service, Boehner would most likely have had to charter a military plane, to which he has access as Speaker. Republicans criticized former Speaker Pelosi for traveling via military air during her tenure, and Boehner has committed to commuting to his Ohio district on commercial flights.

In other words, it's probably fair to consider Boehner's decision not to attend the memorial service an excused absence.

But as long as we're on the subject, reader A.D. emails a thought experiment today: "Let's suppose, hypothetically, it's early 2007. A well liked, photogenic, centrist Republican congressman has been seriously wounded in a shooting incident in which several attendees have been killed, including a 9 year old. President Bush invites the new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, to accompany him on Air Force One to a memorial service for the victims. She declines, and attends a partisan fund raising event instead. How much buzz would this create in the political ether?"

It's a fair question. I'm guessing the answer would be "a whole lot." The story would be the only thing Fox News covered for days, and newspapers would soon be filled with op-eds about the Speaker's callousness. There'd be whispers about whether Pelosi's position was secure. Democrats would emphasize the context, and Republicans would conveniently ignore it.

The parties choose to play by different rules. Dems aren't pushing this story at all today -- nor should they, given the circumstances. Instead, we see left-leaning outlets -- including the one you're reading now -- offering an implicit defense of Boehner, explaining why this isn't really a controversy worth pursuing.

I think any intellectually honest observer, regardless of ideology, should agree that the Republican Attack Machine has no real interest in such niceties or concern for details.

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON PUSHED INTO RETIREMENT.... Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's (R) career trajectory took a rather dramatic turn for the worse in recent years. It wasn't supposed to be this way.

As recently as three years ago, Hutchison was Texas' most popular political figure. In 2009, she launched a gubernatorial race, taking on incumbent Gov. Rick Perry in a Republican primary, and early polls suggested Hutchison was the frontrunner.

But the far-right went after her, sullied her reputation, and soundly defeated her gubernatorial campaign. Today, Hutchison announced she'll walk away from politics altogether at the end of her term next year.

Kay Bailey Hutchison will not run for re-election to the U.S. Senate.

In a letter to supporters, Hutchison said she enjoyed serving Texas.

"I am announcing today that I will not be a candidate for re-election in 2012," she wrote to supporters. "That should give the people of Texas ample time to consider who my successor will be."

There's one very good reason Hutchison won't seek another term: she would have faced a right-wing primary challenger, and she likely would have lost.

Just this week, the Dallas Morning News published a poll showing the three-term senator's approval rating dropping below 50% statewide, and down to just 56% among Texas Republicans.

Public Policy Polling's Tom Jensen added, "The fact that someone like Hutchison who has generally been among the more popular senators in the country and has always won by wide margins has been at least partially pushed out by the Tea Party is indicative of a new reality for Republican Senators -- pretty much no incumbent is safe if these folks decide to target them."

Hutchison, by all appearances, didn't want to walk away from public service, but it seems she didn't have much of a choice -- her conservative voting record wasn't enough to protect Hutchison from her very conservative party.

It's a stark example of Republican politics in the 21st century.

THE CONTEXT OF 'ARMED AND DANGEROUS'.... Any discussion of rhetorical excesses from Republican officials invariably includes some standard examples. Near the top of the list is Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), one of Congress' most ridiculous members, who urged her supporters to be "armed and dangerous" in 2009.

Paul Krugman noted the phrase in his column this week, generating an angry response from the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto. The Republican writer called the Bachmann anecdote "fraudulent" and accused Krugman of telling a "little lie" in his column. (Taranto added, "Krugman and his colleagues on the Times editorial board are not skilled enough to be effective liars.")

Who's right? You can probably guess, but let's set the record straight. Krugman cited Bachmann's quote as an example of "toxic rhetoric" that's "overwhelmingly" generated by the right. Taranto argues that the context of Bachmann's quote is important.

Fair enough. Here's the context for the phrase, published by Taranto himself. (I haven't independently verified the accuracy of Taranto's version -- he cites a blogger I'm unfamiliar with -- but I'm happy to give Taranto the benefit of the doubt.) The subject at hand was Bachmann's concerns about a cap-and-trade proposal in March 2009.

"But you can get all the latest information on this event, this .. a must-go-to event with this Chris Horner. People will learn ... it will be fascinating. We met with Chris Horner last week, 20 members of Congress. It takes a lot to wow members of Congress after a while. This wowed them. And I am going to have materials for people when they leave.

"I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States and that's why I want everyone to come out and hear. So go to bachmann.house.gov and you can get all the information." [pauses reflect pauses, not omitted text]

Taranto seems to think this context proves Krugman wrong. I suppose concepts like "toxic rhetoric" are somewhat subjective, but after reading the context, and seeing Bachmann talk about "armed and dangerous" supporters, the prospect of a "revolution," and the possibility of Americans losing their freedom and their country -- all over a proposal that was originally a Republican idea anyway -- I'm comfortable concluding that Krugman isn't the one who's "lying."

Jon Chait responded to Taranto this way: "So wait -- your defense of Bachmann is that, in the context of urging her followers to be 'armed and dangerous,' she immediately proceeded to extol the benefits of armed revolution? This is supposed to be exculpatory? I think it's a perfect example of the right's hysteria directly legitimizing violence."

It's enough to make me wonder if the editors of the Wall Street Journal are skilled enough to be effective liars.

Update: Taranto emails to argue, "What I called a lie is Krugman's characterization of Bachmann's statement as 'eliminationist rhetoric,'" and urges me to run a correction.

The problem, of course, is that Krugman didn't characterize Bachmann's statement as "eliminationist rhetoric." The phrase appeared in Krugman's column, but specifically in reference to Bachmann's remarks, the NYT columnist cited "armed and dangerous" as an example of "toxic rhetoric" that's "overwhelmingly" generated by the right, which is precisely what I published above. As such, I'm at a loss as to explain what it is I'm supposed to correct.

DADT DEAD-ENDERS: TIME TO MOVE ON.... It's only been a few weeks since the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was repealed, but I more or less assumed the right would move on to other issues by now. This was a resounding defeat for them -- the vast majority of Americans backed DADT repeal, and it was approved with bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.

But dead-enders haven't quite moved on. Likely presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty (R), for example, talked to the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer yesterday. The right-wing host asked specifically about whether the Minnesota governor is prepared to "work to reinstate the prohibition on open homosexual service in the military." Pawlenty replied:

"Bryan, I have been a public and repeat supporter of maintaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell. There's a lot of reasons for that, but if you look at how the combat commanders and the combat units feel about it, the results of those kinds of surveys were different than the ones that were mostly reported in the newspaper and that is something I think we need to pay attention to. But I have been a public supporter of maintaining Don't Ask, Don't Tell and I would support reinstating it as well."

A few things to keep in mind. First, Fischer is one of the single most hate-filled figures in conservative politics, and for Pawlenty to even appear on his radio program does not speak well of Pawlenty's judgment.

Second, Pawlenty's support for reinstating the DADT policy is a reminder of just how far 2012 presidential hopefuls are prepared to go to impress far-right primary voters who'll choose the Republican nominee. Don't be too surprised if the GOP contest includes a competition to see which candidate can prove he/she hates gays more than the rest of the field.

And third, the right really needs to give up on this. Just last week, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's military personnel panel, said he'd look for chances to bring back DADT, too.

Look, I know how much the right hates losing, and DADT had a long run. Last year, Republican almost beat back the effort to repeal the policy, but they came up short. The public wanted to see the change; military leaders wanted to see the change; and lawmakers in both parties approved the change. The moment President Obama held a celebration to sign the legislation, conservatives should have realized the game was up. There was a political fight, and they lost. Why keep pushing this?

That said, I don't imagine Democrats mind, necessarily -- if every Republican presidential candidate opposes a policy that 77% of the country supports, that's likely good news for Dems.

* Update: Greg Sargent reminds me that the "DADT dead-enders" phrase was originally his idea for how to frame this a while back. Greg's right; he came up with the line, not me.

WHEN GIFFORDS OPENED HER EYES.... President Obama strayed from his prepared remarks last night to, oddly enough, make a little news about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' (D-Ariz.) condition.

"I have just come from the University Medical Center ... where our friend Gabby courageously fights to recover even as we speak," he said. "And I want to tell you -- her husband Mark is here and he allows me to share this with you -- right after we went to visit, a few minutes after we left her room and some of her colleagues in Congress were in the room, Gabby opened her eyes for the first time. Gabby opened her eyes for the first time."

In the room with Giffords at the time were Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), all close friends of the congresswoman.

Wasserman Schultz and Gillibrand talked about the experience on "Good Morning America" earlier today. Call me a sucker for heart-warming stories if you must, but amidst all the disheartening developments we see all the time, I like to post positive items occasionally.

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The 168 members of the Republican National Committee will elect their chairman tomorrow, and by indications, incumbent Michael Steele has no chance whatsoever. The favorite, at this point, appears to be Wisconsin GOP Chair Reince Priebus.

* For what it's worth, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has officially endorsed Maria Cino for the RNC position, making an unexpected investment of his political capital.

* Far-right activists in Massachusetts would still love to find a primary challenger for Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), but they can't find anyone credible. "It is interesting that [tea party] people will say Scott Brown needs to be defeated, and you say, OK, who can beat him?' And it's crickets," Christen Varley, president of the Greater Boston Tea Party, said. "I think Scott Brown is completely safe."

* Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), arguably the NRSC's top target in 2012, appears to have his first challenger. North Dakota Public Service Commissioner Brian Kalk (R) has formed an exploratory committee.

* In New Jersey, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) with a narrow lead over his 2006 opponent, Tom Kean Jr. (R), 41% to 39%.

* In Iowa, PPP found President Obama leading all of his potential GOP challengers in a hypothetical 2012 match-ups. Mike Huckabee was the most competitive (trailing Obama by four points), while Sarah Palin was the least competitive (trailing by 16 points).

* In case there were any doubts about Sen. John Thune's (R-S.D.) interest in the 2012 presidential race, note that this week he accepted an invitation to speak to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

* In Pennsylvania, PPP found Rick Santorum running fifth in the field of Republican presidential candidates in his own state. Huckabee was first in the poll with 21%, followed by Palin at 18%.

* And Herman Cain, who ran a pizza company before becoming a Tea Party pseudo-celebrity, created a presidential exploratory committee this week, en route to officially seeking the Republican nomination. Cain's only political experience is losing a GOP Senate primary in Georgia seven years ago.

A CAR ONLY A CONSERVATIVE COULDN'T LOVE.... A couple of months ago, George Will blasted the Chevy Volt, dismissing it as a car "conceived to appease the automotive engineers in Congress, which knows that people will have to be bribed, with other people's money, to buy this $41,000 car." Rush Limbaugh wasn't impressed, either.

In November, baseless complaints from the right notwithstanding, the Volt was named Motor Trend's Car of the Year. This week, the Volt picked up another accolade.

The fuel-efficient Chevrolet Volt won the 2011 North American Car of the Year and the Ford Explorer won the Truck of the Year prize, it was announced at the Detroit auto show Monday morning.

The car award highlights what some enthusiasts hope will be the industry's turn to alternate fuels, which so far has proved to be promise than reality.

Now, we know why the right expected a different result. The underlying concern is that conservatives disapproved of Obama's rescue of the automotive industry, and hoped to see it fail. Limbaugh was explicit on this point, insisting that conservative Americans "do not want [the president's] policy to work here."

But it did work. The right will just have to get over its disappointment.

BUSINESS COMMUNITY NOT SOLD ON HEALTH CARE REPEAL.... To hear congressional Republicans tell it, to support American businesses is to support gutting last year's health care reform law. But do American businesses themselves agree?

To be sure, Republican-friendly lobbying groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business are on board with Republicans' repeal plans. But the Wall Street Journal notes today that the sentiment is not universal.

The big-company Business Roundtable is quieter: Many of its members doubt the Obama law does enough to restrain costs, but regard repeal as neither practical nor wise. Wal-Mart, for one, echoes this, saying, in effect: We don't want to go back to where we were.

At the National Business Group on Health, a collection of nearly 300 big employers, President Helen Darling, a former corporate-benefit administrator and Republican Senate staffer, says about executives who call for repeal: "If they really understood it, they wouldn't."

"I don't think we'll get a better solution in the U.S. in our lifetime" she said. "If it gets repealed, or gutted, we'll have to start over and we'll be worse off."

The piece goes on to note that, from the perspective of a CEO, the Affordable Care Act actually offers a lot to like, including lower costs on employers, tax breaks for small businesses, an eventual end to an expensive "Cobra" program, and a host of ideas intended to slow the unsustainable pace of cost increases.

Indeed, we keep seeing more evidence that, as designed, employers are taking advantage of breaks included in the law that Republicans are eager to gut.

Let's also not forget the "uncertainty" scourge the GOP has been warning us about, which would be made considerably worse if the Republicans' repeal campaign had any success.

As Kevin Drum noted a couple of weeks ago, "[I]t really is possible that both the healthcare sector and the business community in general, after they take a look at what kind of chaos might ensue from ad hoc partial defunding, will put some real pressure on Republicans to stand down on this. That would be an interesting turn of events, no?"

The WSJ report added, "Talking about repeal of the health law may be a winning political strategy for Republicans, a rare way to please both workers and business executives. As long as they don't actually succeed in doing it."

THE ADULT IN THE ROOM.... In his remarks last night, President Obama was gentle in his appeal for civility and unity, careful not to assign blame. Confronting the larger debate about the discourse, he didn't lecture his audience about what they should do, but rather, asked us to aim higher while he led by example.

With this in mind, something Joe Klein wrote last night reminded me of a larger point.

It was a remarkably personal speech, effortlessly sweeping away any notion of pomposity, over-intellectuality or distance. It was written and delivered in plain English. It summoned images, and emotions, that every American -- even those who cannot countenance his legitimacy -- could relate to and be moved by. [...]

And in summoning the community and the nation and the Congresswoman that Christine Taylor Green imagined we are, he summoned for us the country that we should be. On this night, certainly, he was the President she -- and we -- imagined he might be. On this night, finally, he became President of all the people. It was a privilege to behold.

Republican pollster Steve Lombardo noted something similar last night. "It was supposed to be simply a chance to make a good speech, but it may be more than that," Lombardo said. "It may be a time when we look back and say that he re-made himself tonight into the President we thought he could be."

On Fox News, Charles Krauthammer added, "I wouldn't underestimate how this is going to affect the perception of president."

And what might that new perception be? To me, it's that of President Grown-Up. As the tragedy unfolded in Tucson, the usual suspects began a predictable conversation, and for five straight days, we were enveloped in tiresome squabbling.

Last night, the grown up in the White House stood above the noise. "Yes, we have to examine all the facts behind this tragedy," he said. "We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future. But what we cannot do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on each other. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together."

In a very different context, Greg Sargent noted several weeks ago that the president, in the wake of the midterms, may very well "cast himself" as "Washington's resident adult in a town full of bickering children."

That image shined bright 12 hours ago.

I think the media likes to look for these kinds of moments. It makes analysis easier to have concrete turning points that observers can refer back to later as part of a historical shorthand. We're told, for example, that Bill Clinton's turning point in 1995 came as part of his response to the terrorism in Oklahoma City, and while the truth is more nuanced, the details are rounded as part of a larger narrative. Indeed, on Monday, before we even knew that Obama would travel to Tucson, the lead Politico story already told us this had already become "Barack Obama's Oklahoma City moment."

I tend to think much of this is overwrought, but by delivering in a big way last night, Obama not only brought comfort to a grieving community, he gave a political world a chance to tell a new story about his presidency.

RHETORICAL BOOKENDS.... The political world spent a fair amount of time yesterday pondering the career-changing errors of Sarah Palin's video message, and its petty, defensive, resentful qualities. A half-day later, that same political world saw President Obama speak at a memorial service, delivering an inspiring address.

The New York Times noted this morning that the day was therefore "bookended by two remarkable -- and remarkably different -- political performances that demonstrated the vast expanse of America's political landscape.... Unless -- or until -- Ms. Palin runs for president and wins the Republican nomination, there are not likely to be many single days in which the two very different politicians are on display in such dramatic ways."

I can only assume Republicans won't care for the comparison. Jonathan Martin noted what was plainly true: Obama thrived where Palin failed.

At sunrise in the east on Wednesday, Sarah Palin demonstrated that she has little interest -- or capacity -- in moving beyond her brand of grievance-based politics. And at sundown in the west, Barack Obama reminded even his critics of his ability to rally disparate Americans around a message of reconciliation.

Palin was defiant, making the case in a taped speech she posted online why the nation's heated political debate should continue unabated even after Saturday's tragedy in Tucson. And, seeming to follow her own advice, she swung back at her opponents, deeming the inflammatory notion that she was in any way responsible for the shootings a "blood libel."

Obama, speaking at a memorial service at the University of Arizona, summoned the country to honor the victims, and especially nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green, by treating one another with more respect. "I want America to be as good as Christina imaged it," he said.

It's difficult to imagine a starker contrast.

Watching Palin yesterday morning, she looked caustic and small. Watching the president last night, he looked like a giant national leader, which in turn made Palin shrink even further, to the point at which she's hardly visible.

And what a relief it would be if this turn of events made it that much more difficult to see her again going forward.

LET PEOPLE MOURN AS THEY WILL.... Last night, Adam Serwer noted that President Obama's speech at the memorial service in Tucson was so strong, we should expect some on the right to "pivot to attacking the crowd."

Alas, that's pretty much what happened. Praise for the president's remarks appear to be nearly universal -- even Republican pundits were complimentary -- but there have been quite a few complaints about the reactions from those who attended the event.

President Barack Obama probably never imagined he would fill a college gymnasium like this.

But at the University of Arizona's McKale Center Wednesday night, Obama faced a mourning community looking for consolation, but perhaps more importantly, a chance to celebrate its strength. It was a night for sadness, to be sure, but there was also a raucous, nervous energy in the crowd that found release several times in loud, sustained and boisterous cheering.

If it seemed jarring to people watching on TV -- the event was never billed specifically as a memorial event but rather "Together We Thrive: Tucson and America" -- to people inside the hall, it somehow made sense. It was a community unsure how to express itself finding something, finally, to celebrate, even in sadness.

If I'm being entirely honest, I'll concede that I initially found the crowd reaction odd, too. But it quickly occurred to me that people grieve in very different ways, and there's nothing wrong in the slightest about a community coming together, leaning on one another, and celebrating a common spirit.

Politico asked Tucson's Republican mayor, Bob Walkup, if the mood was appropriate. He didn't hesitate: "Oh yes. Yes! If there was one thing that was appropriate, it was cheering. I've been in the hospital, and the people that are healing, they want to hear people cheer."

I guess some folks have to find something to criticize, but I'd remind critics that even small, private memorial services are not uniformly somber. Some speakers tell funny stories, and the laughter offers an emotional release. Sometimes there's uplifting music, and people sing. There's nothing disrespectful or inappropriate about any of this.

There have already been some comparisons to the Wellstone service in 2002 -- a service I think has been unfairly maligned -- but last night was very different. The Wellstone event was vastly more political, and was dominated by Democratic loyalists. Last night in Tucson was devoid of politics altogether.

I can only hope the talk today is about the uplifting nature of the event itself, not whether attendees were wrong to clap.

Let people mourn as they will.

OBAMA SPEAKS TO 'AN AMERICAN FAMILY, 300 MILLION STRONG'.... President Obama spoke at a memorial service in Tucson last night, and we should note at the outset that his task was inherently difficult.

Speeches from national leaders are about as common as the sunrise, but delivering remarks in the wake of a tragedy is a unique presidential charge, and it involves threading a rhetorical needle. Obama had to be positive, but not unsympathetic. Somber, but not depressing. Presidential, but not detached. He had to appeal to our better Angels, but avoid even a hint of political partisanship.

And so the president took the stage at the University of Arizona last night, mindful of these responsibilities, and delivered a genuine triumph. It wasn't just pitch perfect, it was as emotionally satisfying as any speech I've heard Obama deliver.

The president put the victims and their families at the center of attention, which is where they belong, before offering a larger vision about decency and modesty in public life. "Those who died here, those who saved life here -- they help me believe," he said. "We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another, that's entirely up to us."

There was also one section in particular that stuck with me once it was over.

"We recognize our own mortality, and we are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this Earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame -- but rather, how well we have loved and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better.

"And that process -- that process of reflection, of making sure we align our values with our actions -- that, I believe, is what a tragedy like this requires.

"For those who were harmed, those who were killed -- they are part of our family, an American family 300 million strong. We may not have known them personally, but surely we see ourselves in them."

At a fundamental level, I just like the idea of an American family. As we've seen over the last five days, we bicker and shout, and we often struggle to get along, but the threads that tie us together are stronger than we sometimes realize.

Or as the president put it, "As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let's use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together....I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us."

—Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)