I had to slow down posting for a few days since my nerve damage kicked up, but Dave and I will be over on Daily Kos at 4pm Pacific to do a live chat about our new book, OVER THE CLIFF with the great SusanG. She also interviewed us as part of the chat.

Sadly, No! documents how wingnut welfare queens like Mark Levin sell their books.

Disappearing from The Corner with the usual sound effect of Archie Bunker’s toilet flushing, and with the familiar lingering odor of Bay Rum and sock feet on the ottoman, it’s legal expert Mark Levin.

You know, we would LOVE for. . .oh, let’s say Dahlia Lithwick for instance, to question Mark Levin — the right-wing talk radio zealot and wingnut welfare author, the character who used the National Review to falsely claim that he had nominated Rush Limbaugh for a Nobel Peace Prize — about his knowledge of the Constitution, let alone Supreme Court decisions.

The Limbaugh Code: The New York Times best seller no one is talking about
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Friday, April 1, 2005, at 6:21 PM ET

[...]

I use the word “book” with some hesitation: Certainly it possesses chapters and words and other book-like accoutrements. But [Mark R. Levin's] Men in Black is 208 large-print pages of mostly block quotes (from court decisions or other legal thinkers) padded with a foreword by the eminent legal scholar Rush Limbaugh, and a blurry 10-page “Appendix” of internal memos to and from congressional Democrats—stolen during Memogate. The reason it may take you only slightly longer to read Men in Black than it took Levin to write it is that you’ll experience an overwhelming urge to shower between chapters.

It gets more scathing from there. Luckily, Mr. Levin is also a financial expert.

They make the case as do so many of us that conservative authors like Levin use the wingnut welfare system to finance their intellectually barren arguments and books. That's why it's important to support 'Liberal Authors' who don't use the Ctrl+C keyboard short cut as their primary research tool and if you can: Buy this book.

You may have been under the impression that we don't have a monarchy in this country, but apparently we do - especially if you're part of the Cheney gene pool:

Liz Cheney, a mother of five children, has become one of the sharpest and most outspoken critics of the new White House and has needled the Obama administration for failing to protect the nation against terrorism, and mollycoddling terror suspects while pursuing government lawyers who approved water-boarding, a method of inquisition she approves of. She called the president's Nobel Peace prize a "farce".

Pushed by friends and family, Ms Cheney is now reportedly contemplating a run for office herself either in Virginia, where she was raised, or in Wyoming, her parents' home state.

A former senior state department official on the Middle East, the 43-year-old has already attracted favourable comparisons with as a more substantive version of Sarah Palin, another conservative working mother.

"She's likely to seek office," was the judgment of Karl Rove, the former chief adviser to George W Bush.

"I'd love to see her run for office someday," said her father, 69, recently. "I think she's got a lot to offer, and it's been a great career for me, and if she has the interest, and I think she does, then I would like to see her embark upon a career in politics."

In 40 television appearances in the past year, Ms Cheney has robustly defended her father against criticism that he was the sinister force behind war on terror policies that subverted the norms of American justice, arguing that he and Mr Bush did nothing illegal and kept the country safe after 9/11.

Imagine that. She's been on TV forty times in the past year, for nothing more than her DNA and social connections. Yes, Marcy Wheeler calls her "Babydick" and points us to a piece in New York magazine about why NBC loves her so much:

Fox is a regular pulpit, of course, but Liz is also all over NBC, where she happens to be social friends with Meet the Press host David Gregory (whose wife worked with Liz ’s husband at the law firm Latham & Watkins), family friends with Justice Department reporter Pete Williams (Dick Cheney’s press aide when he was secretary of Defense), and neighborhood friends with Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski, daughter of Carter-administration national-security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. When Mika criticized Dick Cheney on her show last year, the former vice-president sent her a box of chocolate cupcakes.

Lawrence O’Donnell, an MSNBC pundit who engaged in a particularly testy shouting match on Good Morning America with Liz Cheney over waterboarding, says the networks have allowed her a high degree of control over her appearances. “She had up to that point been completely accustomed to having interviews go her way and ceded on her terms,” he observes. “She has been careful to make sure that the interviews worked that way.”

Marcy also reminds us that Cheney was her father's eyes and ears in the State Department:

What Hagan describes here, of course, is out and out insubordination (or rather, BabyDick’s insubordination layered on top of Bolton’s insubordination). But what he also makes clear is that not only was BabyDick wired into Bolton’s shop (and with it, discussions that would have revealed the genesis of Joe Wilson’s trip), but she also helped Wurmser accomplish his two-fold goal of thwarting State Department efforts to set up a broad-based Iraqi government (where OVP pressed Chalabi instead) and of setting up propaganda efforts–complete with their very own NYT shill, Judy Miller–to support claims they had found WMDs.

Not that that should be a surprise. But if you’re looking for news in this big [BJ] of an article, that’s one tidbit of it.

DOWNLOADS: (1025)

PLAYS: (4302)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly is such a narcissist that he didn't bother discussing President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech -- which was one of the most newsworthy items of the day yesterday -- until the second half of his show. Nope, first on his list of priorities was to rant and rave about a fictional TV show that dared to have a character who openly called out O'Reilly and his conservative colleagues for the hatemongering nativists they really are.

That's all it takes to set off patented BillO Rampage. 'Law and Order' is just out of control for O'Reilly, and the show's creator, Dick Wolf, is his target.

L&O: Garrison, Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, all of them. They are like a cancer spreading ignorance and hate. They have convinced folks that immigrants are the problem, not corporations that failed to pay a living wage, or a broken health care system.

O'Reilly: That is defamatory.

Bill, this is not reality. Then again, Bill believes George C. Scott's portrayal of Patton was real too. BillO then proceeds to play a few select clips from 2005 and earlier where he actually sounded (albeit ever so briefly) like he was defending poor illegal immigrants on his show. Sorry Bill, we know better, and so does Geraldo Rivera. I guess he forgot this meltdown between the two over BillO's vilification of illegals in the country.

DOWNLOADS: (509)

PLAYS: (2926)

Embed

Here's a flashback from Apr 04, 2007:

GERALDO: "Cool your jets! It has nothing to do with illegal aliens...it has to do with drunk driving! Don't obscure a tragedy to make a cheap political point. It is a cheap political point and you know it!!"

As Silent Patriot noted, Bill did the same thing with the tragic Bronx fire just the month before. He just loves exploiting these isolated incidents to, as Geraldo says, to make "cheap political points."

Back then, Oliver Willis pointed out: "A young girl was tragically killed by a drunk driver. But this was not enough for O'Reilly. Instead, because the criminal was an illegal alien he added this incident to his ongoing crusade against the brown people. Luckily Geraldo was on the show and he - to his credit - called out O'Reilly's xenophobia for exactly what it was. This drove Bill O'Reilly insane. I was almost certain he was going to reach across the table and hit Geraldo."

Ah, but really, he's a nice guy now. Really.

DOWNLOADS: (779)

PLAYS: (992)

Embed

The disgraced man once known as Bush's Brain actually has the nerve to say that the reason President Obama's poll numbers are slipping is because he's wasting time trying to fix our broken f*&king health care system and that's not one of the real "bread and butter" issues that Americans care about.

This from the man who led George W. Bush from an 80% approval rating to one of the lowest approval ratings in the history of America. And George Bush is considered one of the worst President in American history... Oh, yeah, and Karl couldn't help but drool all over himself when he said that Obama is focusing on climate change and never stops talking about his Nobel Peace Prize. When have you ever heard the president mention his prize outside of when he won it, and now that he's picking it up? What a liar.

Rove: ..and he's spent this year talking about health care and talking about greenhouse gas emissions and the environment and his Nobel Peace Prize and not talking about the thing that Americans are concerned about, which is jobs and the economy...

BillO: Bread and butter issues.

You may not agree with some of the measures President Obama has taken in dealing with the economy or health care for that matter, but he's certainly addressed it.

Forget George W. Bush for a minute. Well, you can never forget what he's done to our country so please don't. Ronald Reagan's popularity hit the skids early on in his presidency about the same time as Obama's has, when unemployment jumped under his leadership. Of course, Reagan didn't have a global financial catastrophe and two wars to deal with at the time, either.

Andrew Kohut writes:

The new president described above is, of course, Barack Obama — but, to a startling degree, it is also Ronald Reagan. A close look at Gallup’s polling of reactions to Reagan’s first few months in office provides striking parallels with what Pew Research Center polls now find about opinions of Mr. Obama. And a consideration of the Reagan experience may well give some clues as to what lies ahead for the 44th president.

The public’s bottom lines on Presidents Reagan and Obama early in their presidencies have so far been quite comparable: 60 percent and 59 percent of the public approved of the new presidents in mid-March, respectively. (Going into April, the lines diverge as a sympathetic public response to the March 31 attempt on Reagan’s life boosted his numbers, at least for short period.)---

But the public’s patience with Reagan was relatively short lived. By November, when the jobless rate had risen to 8.3 percent, from 7.5 percent in January, a plurality of the public believed that Reaganomics would hurt, not help, their family finances. So began Ronald Reagan’s approval ratings slide. By December, according to Gallup, 49 percent approved of his job performance while 41 percent disapproved. With the economy faltering, his approval rating fell to 42 percent by July 1982, with 46 percent disapproving. His rating hit a low of 35 percent early the next year.

So BillO's claim that Obama's polls are lower than anyone's in history at this point in his presidency is bogus: Obama's poll numbers, in fact, are closely tracking Reagan's.

And Reagan didn't have a black helicopter-teabagger movement created by a liberal version of FOX News or psycho talk radio that actively sought to overthrow him to deal with either.

Only FOX News would give Karl Rove a job as a lead analyst because they so desperately want the Democratic Party out of power and want to make their audience forget all about George W. Bush. Nice try, you political hacks.

It's true, you are dumb, Halloween book burners.

CJSD: Top Ten Reasons We Should Reject Our Nobel Peace Prize

Skippy: Self-Described Troublemaker Whines because People think he's a Troublemaker

PourMeCoffee: Michael Steele Accuses Democrats of Treason, in Writing, and No One Even Blinks Anymore

Ben Varkentine: Looking for something serious to read this weekend?

Guest posted by Blue Gal.

I realize that there has to be a little more latitude given to op-eds than to straight news reporting, but it seems to me that there has to be a certain level of fact-checking for even editorials for the sake of the credibility of the paper. But then again, maybe WaPo is so deep into their Obama Derangement that they no longer are able to care about credibility.

People can, and undoubtedly will, argue for some time about whether President Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Meanwhile, though, there's a simpler and more immediate question: Does the Constitution allow him to accept the award?

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt's efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson's work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama's award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months -- questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.

Like how the authors gloss over that two other sitting Presidents have received the Nobel Peace Prize, pretty much obliterating their theory on the constitutionality of awarding such a prize? Boneheads, they blow their own argument out of the water. Their choice of laureate: Iranian election martyr Neda Agha-Soltan, which of course, violates the Oslo committee's rules on bestowing the award to a living person. But hey, if you're going to employ poor syllogism to explain why Obama doesn't deserve it, why worry about things like rules?

Adam Blickstein points out a problem with their thinking:

One problem: the hero of the first Gulf War, Gen. Normon Schwarzkopf, received an honorary Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth (which technically makes him a "Knight of the British Empire") in May of 1991 while still on active duty. According to Rotunda and Pham's argument, this violated all kinds of constitutional constraints, Emolument Clause notwithstanding. He retired at the end of August 1991, meaning the General was clearly a foreign agent for the British Empire for approximately 3 months, because how can you be a Knight and an American General at the same time? Where would his loyalty really be? Under this Op-Ed's logic, Schwarzkopf's retirement South should have sent him to the Naval Brig at Charleston, not the golf courses of Florida.

Another government luminary who should have fallen victim to the Emolument Clause as the authors of the Op-Ed envision it? Alan Greenspan, who received his Honorary British Knighthood in 2002 while still serving as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. How could President George Bush sit there idly as the Chairman overseeing America's treasury was more a servant of Britain's Queen Elizabeth than the Commander-in-Chief of the United States? I'm shocked that the entirety of America's money supply didn't end up alongside the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London. But apparently, there was concern in Conservative circles over the legality of Greenspan's ascension in the British Empire. According to Newsmax, the Federal Reserve's General Counsel cleared Greenspan under the Emolument Clause[..].

Even Conservatives acquiesced that a Knighthood was not in violation of the Emolument Clause. I assume the same logic applies to a Nobel Prize.

Is it possible for Conservatives to offer even one well-reasoned argument? Or is it too difficult because, as Colbert says, facts have a liberal bias? Shame on WaPo's editorial board for being so eager to feed their Obama haters. (h/t Ambinder)

DOWNLOADS: (1348)

PLAYS: (3374)

Embed

Everyone (except Shep Smith) at Fox News, including various reporters, spent the day yesterday whining about how mean the White House was being to them, telling everyone that they're a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. Guess the truth hurts. (More on that in a bit.)

It's funny they should say that. Because that same day, every single one of Fox's prime-time "opinion show" anchors devoted time and energy to running down President Obama -- and the Nobel committee -- for his just-announced Peace Prize.

Sean Hannity was so worked up, he devoted two whole segments to the subject, featuring the gnome who lives under the bridge Dick Morris and Mark Steyn. (You'll love Hannity's definition of "peace.") Bernie Goldberg ran through their comparable records of non-accomplishment and announced that he would win the prize next year. But the real corker, of course, came from Glenn Beck, who was able to figure out just what Obama's Nobel Peace Prize really meant:

It may be more revealing on how Europe and the rest of the world views Obama. He [Obama] is dismantling the United States one piece at a time.

And doing so, evidently, at the behest of his European masters. (But wait! I thought he was born in Kenya!)

This really is getting unseemly. A little carping could be expected, but for God's sake, can't any of these people get some perspective? The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the world's great honors, and it's an honor for it to go to an American.

Hannity, for instance, harps on the fact that Obama's nomination came only 12 days after he was inaugurated. But the committee keeps reviewing nominees -- including their current activities -- up until the final vote, which took place not long ago. So Hannity's point is a nonsequitur.

What never seems to occur to any of them is the obvious, simple and clear reason that Obama won the Nobel: He won the Presidency of the United States -- and in so doing, ended conservative-movement rule in America.

The entire world could see that the Bush administration, enabled by a Republican Congress, and fueled by an increasingly bellicose and irrational talk-show was the greatest threat to global peace since the fall of the Berlin Wall -- outpacing even the terrorist disturbances of Al Qaeda, particularly in lives lost. Nor would conservatives give up their hold on power readily; defeating them was no mean feat.

Entertaining such thoughts, though, would paralyze any well-trained right-winger in a fit of cognitive dissonance, so it never comes up on places like Fox.

Michael Moore may have put it best:

The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Because on that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were totally and thoroughly rebuked. One man -- a man who opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning -- offered to end the insanity. The world has stood by in utter horror for the past eight years as they watched the descendants of Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson light the fuse of our own self-destruction. We flipped off the nations on this planet by abandoning Kyoto and then proceeded to melt eight more years worth of the polar ice caps. We invaded two nations that didn't attack us, failed to find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own wave of terror. People all over the world wondered if we had gone mad.

And if all that wasn't enough, the outgoing Joker presided over the worst global financial collapse since the Great Depression.

So, yeah, at precisely 11:00pm ET on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. And the 66 million people who voted for him won it, too. By the time he took the stage at midnight ET in the Grant Park Historic Hippie Battlefield in downtown Chicago, billions of people around the globe were already breathing a huge sigh of relief. It was as if, in that instant, one man did bring the promise of peace to the world -- and most were ready to go wherever he wanted to go to achieve that end. Never before had the election of one man made every other nation feel like they had won, too. When you've got billions of people ready, willing and able to join a cause like this, well, a prize in Oslo is the least that you deserve.

It's also worth noting that the Peace Prize historically has gone to those -- like Martin Luther King -- who have produced important transformative steps in the furtherance of civil rights and the healing of the racial divide, which has produced so much misery and inflicted so much violence in America alone. Obama's election as the first African-American president represents just such a moment, and he deserves recognition for that alone as well.

The Fox folks need to get a grip. And if they wonder why the White House sees them as reflexively opposed to everything and anything Obama does, they should just play the above video as a reminder.

DOWNLOADS: (2368)

PLAYS: (5765)

Embed

Do ya think? Not only did Anita Dunn take a really strong stand for President Obama over the Roger Ailes run FOX Noise Propaganda Network, she also called out the conservative-teabagger movement in its entirety.

Dunn: A week ago many conservative commentators had been rejoicing in the fact, celebrating in the fact that the United States didn't get the Olympics, one week later they seem to be somewhat bitter at the fact that an American President was awarded the Nobel peace prize. So I think people will draw their own conclusions abut the reflexive negativity on the part of some commentators regardless of what happens...

Dunn held back no punches and stated fact. That's nice to see.

Howard Kurtz was pretty comical with his questions, but he was trying to provide some pushback, I guess.

KURTZ: You were quoted this week in Time Magazine as saying of Fox News, it's opinion journalism masquerading as news. What do you mean, "masquerading"?

See what I mean? But he did have to ask that.

DUNN: Well, you know, Howie, I think if we went back a year ago to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that, you know, it was a time that this country was in two wars, that we'd had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest story, the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called Acorn, when the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.

Yep, that sums up FOX Noise. Then she delivered the knockout punch.

Think Progress writes:

Last month, President Obama appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows, including Univision’s Al Punto. He rejected Fox, however. Dunn revealed this morning that Obama did not appear on Fox because of its reflexive, partisan opposition to Obama. Obama will go on Fox in the future, Dunn said, but when he goes on, “he’s going on to debate the opposition.”

And then after Kurtz asked her if the president would go on FOX ever again, she said this too:

Dunn: That when he goes on FOX, he understands he's not going on, it really isn't a news network at this point, he's going to debate the opposition and that's fine.

The opposition, I loved that.

Howard asked someone from FOX to appear on Reliable Sources, but they refused and instead issued their usual statement. They'd rather have BillO speak to his audience than have anybody debate the facts -- especially, of course, on another network. FOX gives their usual argument that while they do have news, people really rely on their opinion programs. That's stunning really. MSNBC has their lefty hosts too, but during the day, you'll hear all the news and not MSNBC's opinion version of the news.

Kurtz did his best to find a few reporters that he thought weren't corrupted by Ailes so he mentioned Major Garrett. Do you think he's fair...Please say he's fair...Oh please oh please oh please. And Anita then calmly explained why they didn't go on Chris Wallace. Good for her.

And I told Major quite honestly that we had told Chris Wallace that having fact-checked an administration guest on his show -- something I've never seen a Sunday show do. And, Howie, you can show me examples of where Sunday shows have fact-checked previous weeks' guests, and I'd be happy to see those. We asked Chris, for an example, where he had done that to anybody besides somebody from the administration in the year 2009. And we're still waiting to hear from him.

She didn't stop there.

Dunn: Let's be realistic here, Howie. They are widely viewed as, you know, a part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points, put them on the air. Take their opposition research, put them on the air, and that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network they way CNN is.

Kurtz did his best to try and get her to differentiate between the Beck's show and their little news nuggets, and she wouldn't back down. Where's the John Ensign coverage? she asks Howie. Hmmm, you won't see it much -- if at all -- on FOX. And that's only one example out of thousands.

Bob Dole was told to keep his trap shut by non other than the odious Mitch McConnell, the man who has as an approval rating as low as Dick Cheney's.

The GOP’s 1996 candidate for president said he was asked by current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., not to issue a bipartisan statement calling for passage of health care reform legislation.

“We’re already hearing from some high-ranking Republicans that we shouldn’t do that — that’s helping the president,” Dole said. He later specified that the people he referred to included one “very prominent Republican, who happens to be the Republican leader of the Senate,” according to The Kansas City Star .Dole was also quoted as saying that partisanship by his own GOP was behind the delay in reaching agreement on a final health care bill..

I don't expect Dole to suddenly go on the air and rip into his party, but the fact that this much got out says a lot. The republicans have no plan for health care reform so any words that come from older republicans on the hot topic carries a sting to it.

Mitch will be on Face the Nation today and I wonder if Bob Schieffer will bring it up or read a David Brooks column. Maybe they'll just want to talk about the Nobel Peace prize. What do you think?

Sally Field's 1985 Oscar acceptance speech

Wouldn't it have been great to live in a country that celebrates the achievements of its members? One where we could all tear up at realizing that the world likes us, right now, it likes us again?

Alas, 'tis not to be. We're too busy tearing people down--Obama doesn't deserve the NPP, there are still people dying in Afghanistan (never mind that there are still people dying in Israel and Palestine, some 15 years after Arafat, Peres and Rabin jointly won; or that people were still dying in Vietnam when Kissinger won 1973; or that South Africa still had 10 more years of apartheid after Tutu won in 1984.) I'm not sure why our collective memories are so short that we have forgotten (or maybe the media just doesn't want us to remember) that the Nobel Peace Prize is rarely awarded for results, but to congratulate a person who has suggested a new path towards world peace and strengthen international diplomacy.

Those paths don't always come to fruition--see Arafat, et al., above...or Wilson's award for creating the League of Nations, but it is the intent, the choice not to do business the same old way that gets credit with the Nobel committee.

Obama's Nobel is sure to be a major topic on all the shows. As is foreign policy, which makes sense, given the reasoning behind Obama's award. We also have a brand new Sunday show debuting on CNN: Amanpour, with Christiane Amanpour (2:00 pm Eastern/11:00 am Pacific). She's landed some seriously big names for her first program: Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. McCain Mini-Me Lindsey Graham is on Meet the Press, along with Gen. Barry McCaffrey. Gosh, I wonder what they're going to advocate. DiFi and Saxby Chambliss are on This Week, to discuss Afghanistan and how extremely disconcerting it is to have a POTUS who actually thinks first and decides later. Don't miss the round table, which will feature Arianna Huffington and Nicole Wallace. I guess TW's Exec. Producer listened to me about getting on a liberal blogger. And finally, I don't want anyone to worry that they're going to miss John McCain on a Sunday show. Mr. Also-Ran is on State of the Union, alongside Debbie Stabenow and Bob Casey.

ABC's "This Week" - Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.; Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.; retired Army Gen. Jack Keane.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Jack Reed, D-R.I.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Lindsay Graham, R-S.C.; retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey; retired Gen. Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Clarence Page, Gloria Borger, Andrea Mitchell and David Ignatius. Topics: Has Obama stalled in his ability to achieve major accomplishments this year? What does the David Letterman case say about what is scandalous nowadays? Meter Question: Is concern that President Obama has stalled more perception than reality? YES: 8 NO: 4.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and Bob Casey, D-Pa.; Anita Dunn, White House communications director; Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - 8 years of war in Afghanistan - what are President Obama's options? Fareed speaks with an expert panel and the Pakistani ambassador to the U-S. Plus, does the diamond business deserve its dirty reputation?

CNN's "Amanpour" - "Power & Persuasion" U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates join Christiane Amanpour for an exclusive roundtable discussion, looking at global challenges.

"Fox News Sunday" - Wynn Resorts Ltd. CEO Steve Wynn; Govs. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., and Mitch Daniels, R-Ind.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?