Now that Sarah Palin has dropped her resignation bomb, the rest of the Web is spending a lovely Friday afternoon trying to figure out why. Matt Cooper has some theories, here. Friends Palin tell Politico's Mike Allen she plans to remain in the public eye, but hasn't decided anything about 2012. Is this a clue?

Balz talks to a lot of people, and no one has a firm theory about the resignation.

Halperin has 10 possible factors, most of which come down to money.

An Alaska blogger lists some possible reasons

Stromberg says this was a foolish move.

Alaska Democrats think she's crazy.

Bill Kristol thinks she's crazy like a fox.

And, of course, if you haven't read Purdum's Vanity Fair piece, it's definitely worth the hour of your life to read it.

Here's more from President Obama's interview this morning with the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven:

On Russia, Obama was asked why he plans to meet with former Russian President Vladimir Putin in addition to talks with current leader Dmitry Medvedev. “(Putin) still has a lot of sway…and I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev that Putin understand that the old Cold War approaches to U.S.-Russian relations is outdated — that's it's time to move forward in a different direction,” Obama told the AP. “"I think Medvedev understands that. I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new, and to the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the U.S. is not seeking an antagonistic relationship but wants cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, that we'll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process.”

Also on foreign policy, Obama said he was “not reconciled” with the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. The president also expressed some reservations about his recently announced policy of putting some high risk Guantanamo Bay detainees in “indefinite detention” as the administration moves to close the prison next year. “It gives me huge pause,” Obama said, suggesting he may not follow through on the policy.

In perhaps his most interesting comments, Obama weighed in on the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action this week, in which it decided in favor of a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who sued the city for reverse discrimination. The ruling overturned a verdict laid down by an Appeals Court judge named Sonia Sotomayor. (Maybe you’ve heard of her.) SCOTUS, Obama said, was “moving the ball” on affirmative action, but he noted that the court had ruled out the use of racial preferences in hiring. Still, he spoke sympathetically toward the white firefighters, telling Loven, “I’ve always believed that affirmative action was less of an issue or should be less of an issue that it has made out to be in news reports.”

In addition to the Michael Jackson comments, Obama also weighed in on life at the White House. His biggest pet peeve: having to wear make-up all the time. "The shine police," he groused. On the plus side, he raved about the White House pastry chef, who “makes the best pie I’ve ever tasted."

Vice President Joe Biden just landed in Baghdad in a surprise two-day visit to Iraq. According to the White House, Biden is there to meet with U.S. military officials and troops and will sit down with Iraqi political leaders including President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The trip comes on the heels of Biden’s new Iraq duties. As Newsweek was first to report, President Obama has asked Biden to take the lead on Iraq policy with the goal of encouraging Iraqi political leaders to get their act together. Here’s part of my write-up from Newsweek's latest issue:

Biden's role will be something of an unofficial envoy to Iraq, though he won't handle day-to-day dealings with officials on the ground. The goal is to "raise the level" in hopes that Biden's stature encourages Iraqi officials to bridge their political differences, says a senior administration official who didn't want to be named talking about high-level personnel decisions. "He knows the players," White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel tells NEWSWEEK. "He brings a lot of experience and expertise on this issue to the table, and the president trusts him."

While they insist that overall incidents of violence in Iraq remain low, Obama and his aides worry about the recent spate of bombings in the region and the Iraqi security forces' ability to respond. But it's the continued political turmoil that has officials most anxious. Both Obama and Biden have raised the issue repeatedly with Iraqi leaders in recent months, without much success. "I think the Maliki government is not only going to have to continue to strengthen its security forces, but it's also going to have to engage in the kind of political give-and-take leading up to the national elections that we've been talking about for quite some time," Obama said on June 26. "I haven't seen as much political progress in Iraq … as I would like to see."

Call him what you will—ridiculous, heroic, a clown—but beginning next week, Al Franken will officially be known as Senator. Despite the disadvantage of getting a late start, having a fresh face will make him the newest object of attention on Capitol Hill. Other members will want to meet him and anxious staffers will ask for photos. But that's small peanuts. For lobbyists, there are few things more valuable than pushing a crisp business card into the palm of a new member with a blank slate.

Lobbying by nature is a competitive sport—there's only so much time and money to be divvied out. In Washington, the value is highest, where national legislation or federal contracts can translate into big money for interest groups that have an issue to push. Add to the equation Franken's untimely arrival in the midst of huge debates on climate change and health care and the price for Franken's ear will be high. So how does Washington's massive lobby machine break in the Senate's newest addition?

(More after the jump)

When President Obama met Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for the first time last April, both men called for a new day in relations between the two countries. Obama said he wanted to push the “reset” button, while Medvedev called for an end to the “drift” in the U.S./Russian dynamic. They pledged to forge a more pragmatic relationship than their predecessors, George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, who bonded personally even as ties between Russia and the U.S. sank to new lows. Obama did not want to be “buddy buddy” with Medvedev, a senior administration official told reporters at the time. The White House, according to the official, wanted to forge something “more substantial,” a rapport of “candor and frankness” that would produce real results.

As Obama prepares for his first visit to Russia next week, the boundaries of that new relationship will face its first real test. Obama and Medvedev are expected to announce some progress toward the renegotiation of a crucial arms control treaty that aims to cut down on nuclear weapons stockpiles. But despite all the conciliatory talk these past few months, the two sides continue to face significant differences over several issues, including how to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and a proposed U.S. missile shield in Europe. In recent weeks, the Russians have suggested that Obama will not reach his goal of reducing nuclear arms unless he drops the U.S.’s missile defense plans. But on Wednesday, the White House signaled in some surprisingly tough talk that it would offer no such concessions on that issue or another hot topic for the Russians: a U.S.-backed push to add former Soviet states Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, a move Moscow strongly opposes.
 
Asked in a briefing what “reassurances” Obama might give Medvedev on those two issues, Michael McFaul, the president’s top adviser on Russia, unloaded. “We’re definitely not going to use the word reassure in the way we talk about these things,” McFaul told reporters. “We’re not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense… We don’t need the Russians.” They would be no concessions on those issues “in the name of reset.” McFaul insisted.

President Obama heads to the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., today to hold a health care town hall. It’s the second time in a week that Obama has taken questions from the public on reform efforts. Last Wednesday, Obama participated in an ABC News forum on the topic at the White House. Today, Obama will take questions from a live audience, as well as those submitted via Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. It’s all a part of Obama’s efforts to use his own political popularity to get health care reform through Congress. This marks a bit of a strategy change for the White House. Initially, Obama tried to take a hands-off approach to the legislation, allowing Congress to take the lead. The plan seemed based on not repeating the mistakes of the Clinton White House which saw its reform efforts go down the tubes in 1993 when it took a heavy-handed approach to the bill, as opposed to letting lawmakers run the show. But Obama is far more popular than Bill Clinton was, and Democrats want the president to share some of their political burden on what will no doubt be a tricky debate. But is Obama doing enough?

Not unlike George W. Bush when he tried to use his own political capital to sell the equally tricky task of reforming Social Security four years ago, Obama is trying to have it both ways. He wants to bank on his enormous popularity to influence the public to pressure Congress to get something done this year, but he also wants to stay above the fray. Obama doesn’t want to get too specific about what he wants and doesn’t want in a bill because he knows what ultimately emerges from Congress will be a test of compromise.

The Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled Al Franken the winner of the hotly contested Minnesota Senate race this afternoon. Incumbent Norm Coleman had appealed a lower court's decision, primarily arguing that absentee ballots had been improperly handled by electoral officials. Coleman now has the option of appealing to federal courts. He has yet to indicate whether he plans to rest his campaign for the seat. ***UPDATE Coleman has conceded the race to Franken. He won't be lodging a federal appeal.*** On Sunday, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty told CNN he was prepared to certify Franken as soon as the ruling was handed down, but he added he would of course follow the direction of the Supreme Court should Coleman take his appeal further. 

Depending on Coleman's actions, Franken may be seated as early as next week, when Congress returns from Fourth of July recess. This would nominally give the Democrats a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority. But will Franken's presence in the caucus really change things for Senate Democrats? I'm inclined to think no. Why? Because the real 60th vote remains newly minted Democrat Arlen Specter, and it's still unclear to me the degree to which he will actually be a faithful caucus member. So far, he appears to be playing well with his new friends, but his loyalty hasn't really been tested yet. The most telling indicator of his intentions to date was his decision last week to support the inclusion of a public plan in health-reform legislation. This came after weeks of strategically applied grassroots pressure mobilized by pro-public-plan groups. Predictably, Specter is less concerned with the ideological or policy ramifications of his supporting a public plan than with his electoral viability if he doesn't. Specter is increasingly likely to face a serious challenger in the Democratic primary, so he needs to prove to Democratic primary voters that he can be trusted to remain true to his new party label. Franken will indeed add a (undeniably entertaining) 60th voice to the caucus room, but the real 60th vote is still in the hands of Pennsylvania primary voters.

As I noted earlier, the first couple hosted a celebration honoring LGBT Pride Month in the East Room this afternoon. The event comes amid rising tensions between the Obama administration and the gay community, who are disappointed at the lack of attention given to their issues so far this year. For the most part, Obama didn't mince words. He described the gay rights "struggle" as "difficult," "painful," and "heartbreaking." He likened the movement to prior civil-rights battles, drawing parallels with "all those in our history who've been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, who've been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them." He told the by-invitation-only group that he understood their frustrations, and it wasn't for him to advise patience, "any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago."

After listing the steps his administration has taken to further gay rights—signing the memo about extending partner benefits to federal employees, calling on Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, meeting with Matthew Shephard's mother as part of a strategy to address hate crimes, and repealing the HIV travelers ban—Obama turned to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And this is where his words went from unambiguous to murky. Although he acknowledged that "preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security," his plan for ending DADT was unclear. He's apparently working with the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs to develop some sort of strategy, but he didn't give a deadline or outline a process. The upshot? This doesn't really advance the repeal much beyond a campaign promise. There is a bright side for gay-rights activists, though. If you read between the lines, DADT will likely be repealed before the next election (or 2016, depending how bullish you are on Obama's chances). Here's Obama:

I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps...We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.

I'm thinking those words will be ringing in the gay community for weeks.

Over the past couple of weeks, we at the Gaggle have been discussing Obama's fraught relationship with the gay community, a group that provided his campaign with both staunch support and cash. (Read Holly's summary post here.) Today there are two symbolically important developments in this relationship. First, the president is hosting a reception in the East Room this afternoon to honor LGBT Pride Month and commemorate the 40th anniversary of Stonewall. Second, Politico's J-Mart (filling in for Ben Smith) reports that the administration is planning to repeal a ban that restricts HIV-positive travelers from entering the country. It has filed notice with the Federal Register, so there will be a 45-day window for public discussion before the Department of Health and Human Services enacts the change. While the HIV-travelers ban is not strictly a gay issue, it's certainly one that advocacy groups like the Human Rights Campaign feel strongly about.

Will these two moves be enough to sate gay activists? Probably not, but it's unclear whether gay leaders are prepared to escalate the fight at this time. As political guru Adam Nagourney writes, despite growing public support for gay rights, some Democrats are wary about pushing for them (and providing ammo for conservatives) at a time when tricky issues like heath reform and energy are on the table. Democrats don't need the distraction of a fight for gay marriage, for example, right now. Gay leaders have no doubt heard this message, and might be momentarily satisfied with these overtures if they view them as an indication that the administration will back its promises on "don't ask, don't tell" and gay marriage when it has some breathing room. The problem is that the "right" time to tackle gay-rights issues may never materialize. Your Gaggler's suspicion is that today's moves will defuse criticism for the time being, but if gay-rights groups don't see some movement by early next year (i.e., when health and energy are taken care of), they'll turn the heat up again. They'll want something more concrete for their troubles before the 2012 cycle, and they're smart enough to want it done well before the GOP starts gearing up.