If President Obama was looking for another way to differentiate himself from President Bush, he just found it. When it comes to sports, you might recall Bush as an avid mountain biker. He also showed off some lightening-quick reflexes that one time that would give him an edge in dodgeball, and certainly fencing. Obama’s forté so far has been shooting hoops. Now add to the list, football. Check out this PSA that will run during several football games on Thanksgiving Day that encourages kids to get more exercise. Between spliced footage of kids running and doing jumping jacks, Obama makes a cameo on the White House lawn, tossing around the old pigskin. An ordinary game of catch, right? Not quite. The whole spot comes off as rather moving, almost epic, but not because of Obama or his receiving skills. Producers slowed down the footage so much that a short-range pass from New Orleans’s Saints quarterback Drew Brees to Obama ends up looking like a Sports Center highlight. Then, add in some dramatic background music and the receiver-in-chief almost looks qualified for a Heisman. Of course that would be premature. First we would need to see his end-zone dance.

As his hopes of winning the congressional election in New York's 23rd district fade, conservative candidate Doug Hoffman is clearly getting desperate. Today he's blaming his loss on "ACORN, the unions, and the Democratic party" who he alleges, without a shred of evidence, tampered with votes to rig the election against him. Never mind that ACORN told David Weigel that they didn't have volunteers in the area, or that it largely operates in poor urban communities, which NY-23 is not. For conservatives, ACORN is shorthand for the evils of the left.

On the heels of that news, Public Policy Polling released this shocking nugget on its blog: "a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately." Say what? More than half of Republican respondents believe the president was elected fraudulently! That's a stunningly high number. It's disturbing, not only as a demonstrable lack of faith in America's democracy but as an expression of wanton ignorance. Worse, it illustrates the effectiveness of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al., alongside a well-funded "Stop ACORN" campaign, in creating an atmosphere where unquestioned lies become received wisdom.

Over at The Daily Beast today, political strategist Mark McKinnon makes a compelling argument for why the 2012 election could be tailor-made for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. McKinnon is one of the sharpest minds around when it comes to understanding the mood of the electorate. McKinnon knows how to sell winning candidates, which is why I think the case he builds for Bloomberg is a serious one. Bloomberg is a true centrist who has racked up a swag of political achievements in New York—and he has a ton of cash. Dropping $1 billion on a presidential campaign would barely cause a ripple in his ocean of Benjamins. And he appeals to the growing bloc of independent voters. But, after reading McKinnon's analysis, I've got a couple of lingering questions.

First, how will his background in financial services play to an electorate weary of Wall Street misadventures? To be sure, it's been a very long time since Bloomberg was directly involved in trading and banking. Most of his cash piled up when he started offering IT and media services to the financial sector. But Wall Street is already enough of a myth to most voters. They may not have the patience to distinguish between the greedy bankers who broke the economy and the folks that provided the information that helped them carry out the devastating deeds. They may just see a really, really, ridiculously rich guy who made his money on Wall Street.

I've been a little hesitant to weigh in on the debate about what it means that President Obama bowed when he met Japanese Emperor Akhito. It seems that the folks who are outraged by the bow are just seizing on it as yet another outlet for an increasingly unhinged disdain for anything and everything the President does. Those who aren't imbuing the bow with earth shattering meaning don't care enough to offer a passionate defense of it. They're just shrugging their shoulders and moving on.

Katie thinks that while President Obama's job summit is sensible on policy grounds it will be a political liability, reinforcing his image as a dithering talker in the face of crisis.

Says Katie, "Is it a good idea? Yes. Having key stakeholders put their heads together, or at least communicate about the problem, will undoubtedly produce some interesting ideas." So, case closed, right? Wrong! "The 'optics' of the summit ...might just work against him," Katie warns. "Obama is undeniably a deliberative president. He shares none of his predecessor's brash decisiveness ... I'm not sure the public finds that tendency comforting anymore."

Katie's premise is correct. Many Americans are reassured by leaders like our erstwhile "decider" in uncertain times. Until, that is, their rash decisions prove disastrous. Then Americans die, deficits mount, and their approval ratings plummet.

So, while Katie's political advice to Obama might be wise in the short term, it strikes me as short-sighted. Good policy is good politics, especially where the economy is concerned. Careful decision making now will pay political dividends later.

Today, just before jumping on Air Force One for his nine-day trip to Asia, the president announced that he'll convene a "jobs summit" in December. Amid rising joblessness, the summit will ostensibly aim to figure out ways to create new jobs and stem the flow of recession-induced layoffs. The president will invite CEOs, economists, unions, and small-business leaders to meet with administration officials at the White House to discuss the issue. "It's important that we don't make any ill-considered decisions—even with the best intentions—particularly at a time when our resources are so limited. But it's just as important that we are open to any demonstrably good idea to supplement the steps we've already taken to put America back to work. That's what this forum is about," Obama told reporters today.

Voting in Pepper Pike, Ohio on Tuesday. Photo by Amy Sancetta/AP

It's Election Day, and although none of the contests has a real national impact, political strategists will be analyzing every minute detail for clues on national trends. As the results come trickling in, here are five things to watch for.

1. In Virginia, things look pretty dour for Creigh Deeds. Although Obama won the state last year, Deeds has few of the traits that excited Democrats to vote for Obama in droves. But Republicans will quickly celebrate a poor showing by Deeds as proof that the president's star power is waning. Watch for the White House to subtly distance itself from the Deeds campaign, likely in the form of blind quotes on Politico or in tomorrow's Washington Post.

D.C. loves nothing more than insider intrigue about closed-door meetings. Exhibit A: TPM's Brian Beutler is stirring the pot with his reporting that last week's White House health-care meeting between the president and Senators Reid and Schumer was more acrimonious than we've been led to believe. Days after the meeting Reid announced the inclusion of a public option in his health-care bill, amid speculation that the White House still favored a trigger option. Beutler writes that in the days leading up to the meeting, relations between Reid and the administration inched toward the breaking point. His sources describe "the back and forth between Senate health-care principals and the White House as a "sort of stare-down where the two sides were saying, 'you be the face of pulling it out.' Reid wants Obama to do it to give cover to his caucus. Obama wants Reid to do it so he's not the bad guy on the public option and can still walk away with a win with reform, with bipartisanship, and with a card for everybody running for reelection." He also reports that Schumer was the one tasked with pitching Reid's opt-out-option strategy to the president. When he did, Beutler's source says,"Obama was less than responsive and asked questions that suggested he preferred an option that could get the trigger and bipartisan support." 

In true D.C. fashion, however, my sources paint a different picture. Senior Democratic sources close to the discussions tell me that the White House meeting was all about Olympia Snowe and how to secure her vote. It's no secret that the president is eager to call reform a bipartisan effort, and Snowe holds the one last candle of hope. But by the time Reid and Schumer entered the White House, Snowe was no longer the topic du jour for them. They were operating on a different calculus.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled her long-awaited health-care bill today. There aren't any real surprises. Most of the newsy provisions have been well known for weeks now. The bill will likely extend coverage to 36 million Americans, and it will prevent insurers from dropping or denying coverage. It also won't add to the deficit, thus satisfying one of the president's primary objectives. The CBO estimates the cost at under $900 billion. Here are a few of the key points you need to know about the bill:

• The change that will perhaps have the most impact on Americans is the expansion of Medicaid. Under Pelosi's bill, anyone earning up to 150 percent of the poverty line will be eligible for Medicaid. This is an increase on previous iterations─and the Senate bill─which only covered people up to 133 percent of the poverty line.
  
• The bill includes a public option but not the so-called robust plan. Hospitals and providers will be able to negotiate their rates with the government insurer.
• A surtax will be leveled on wealthy Americans─those earning over $500,000 for individuals or $1 million for families─to help offset costs. This differs from the Senate bill which relies on a tax on "Cadillac," or expensive, insurance plans. Medical-devices companies will also be subject to a new tax.
  
• The bill removes the health-insurance industry's exemption from antitrust laws, which will no doubt upset insurers.
• Like her Senate colleagues, Pelosi won't be offering a "doc's fix," that is, she won't offer a long-term solution to a problematic Medicare formula that causes reimbursement rates for physicians treating Medicare patients to decrease.
• Medicare expenditures will be cut by approximately 1.3 percent, with the pharmaceutical industry bearing the brunt.

The bill currently has no Republican support. Abortion remains a sticking point for some Democrats, like Bart Stupak of Michigan, who want to see the language tightened to prohibit any federal funds being used to fund abortions, meaning that government subsidies can't be put toward plans that cover abortion.

Politico reports that Pelosi has reneged on a deal she made with Anthony Weiner of New York to allow a vote on a single-payer system on the floor. The vote would have failed by a large margin, but its symbolism was important to liberals who feel that they've already compromised enormously in backing a public option over single payer.

Michelle Obama can add one more thing to her list of "firsts": next month she will be the first First Lady to grace the cover of Glamor Magazine. It's part of the fashion mag's annual "Women of the Year" edition, and Obama is being honored for her with a Special Recognition award for her work in mentoring younger women. Of course, no self-respecting women's mag would run a cover story without some mention of the central issue: boys. So what does the President's wife have to say on the matter? Good looks won't cut it.

A few months ago I wrote a short piece about the startling practice of using open-air burn pits to incinerate waste on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. The toxic fumes from these pits have been linked to a host of debilitating illnesses in troops and contractors who worked near them. Here's an excerpt from my original piece:

Josh Eller, a military contractor stationed in Iraq in 2006, was driving through Balad Air Base when he spotted the wild dog. He wasn't sure what was in its mouth—but when Eller saw two bones, he knew he was looking at a human arm. The dog had pulled the limb from an open-air "burn pit" on the base used to incinerate waste. Eller says it's "one of the worst things I have seen."

Since hearing Eller's story, lawyer Elizabeth Burke has signed on 190 additional clients with complaints about burn pits at 18 military sites in Iraq and Afghanistan. By now, she says, all pits should have been replaced by pollution-controlled incinerators. She's filed suits in 17 states against KBR, the company contracted to provide waste-disposal services at these bases, accusing it of negligence and harm. Burke was shocked to learn what her clients saw incinerated: Humvees, batteries, unexploded ordnance, gas cans, mattresses, rocket pods, and plastic and medical waste (including body parts, which may explain the arm). Fumes containing carcinogenic dioxins, heavy metals, and particulates, according to an Army–Air Force risk assessment, waft freely across bases.