What surprised me at [our first meeting to discuss the vice presidency] was that Obama was clearly thinking more seriously about picking Hillary Clinton than Ax and I had realized …. At our next meeting, we narrowed the list down to six. Barack continued to be intrigued by Hillary. “I still think Hillary has a lot of what I am looking for in a VP,” he said to us. “Smarts, discipline, steadfastness. I think Bill may be too big a complication. If I picked her, my concern is that there would be more than two of us in the relationship.” ….

Shortly before he took off for Hawaii and his much needed vacation, Obama asked Axelrod and me to meet with the three finalists. [We] pieced together a schedule that had us departing Chicago at 5:30 a.m. for Wilmington, Del., to meet with Biden; then on to West Virginia, where Bayh was vacationing with his family; and then to Virginia to meet with Kaine.

The [first] meeting started with Biden launching into a nearly 20-minute monologue that ranged from the strength of our campaign in Iowa (“I literally wouldn’t have run if I knew the steamroller you guys would put together”); to his evolving views of Obama (“I wasn’t sure about him in the beginning of the campaign, but I am now”); why he didn’t want to be VP (“The last thing I should do is VP; after 36 years of being the top dog, it will be hard to be No. 2″); why he was a good choice (“But I would be a good soldier and could provide real value, domestically and internationally”); and everything else under the sun. Ax and I couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

It confirmed what we suspected: this dog could not be taught new tricks. But the conversation also confirmed our positive assumptions: his firm grasp of issues, his blue collar sensibilities and the fact that while he would readily accept the VP slot if offered, he was not pining for it.

As you can see in the video below, even House Minority Leader John Boehner’s getting in on the act, standing behind a pile of paper and saying, “Tell me how we’re giong to fix our healthcare system with 1,990 pages of bureaucracy. This is what the American people have been saying over the last few months.” Matt Drudge, of course, is all over this as well, proclaiming the bill “Pelosi’s biggest one yet!”

Drudge is also helping lead the charge on the second part of the GOP’s messaging about this. They’re hoping to convince voters that Democrats are keeping the public from finding out what’s really in the bill, and in order to do that on Thursday they focused on the event Pelosi and her fellow senior House Democrats held to announce the bill, decrying their decision to bar members of the public who weren’t invited.

Of course, the Democrats had good reason to do so — some protests had been planned in advance, though only a handful of people showed up. Besides, as the Washington Times noted near the end of a story that otherwise tried to advance the Republicans’ complaints, the GOP ‘s own healthcare event on Thursday was even more closed off than the Democrats’ was.

More than that, though, it’s also pretty clear that whether the general public is allowed to watch a launch event like this one, which is generally not the best source of information and was being televised anyway has nothing to do with how transparently the reform process is being handled. But facts and logic often have little to do with politics, so we’ll still have to see how this approach plays in Peoria.

On Wednesday, Fishbowl DC reported that Michael Clemente, a senior vice president at Fox, had met with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and that the two had “reached what some are calling a ‘truce.’” FishbowlDC also reported that Clemente subsequently met with the network’s Washington bureau and “encouraged staff to remain ‘fair and balanced.’”

The meeting itself has since been confirmed, though the rumors of a truce haven’t yet. Both sides are remaining mum about what went on. It’s worth remembering that this isn’t the first time there’s been a high-level meeting between the Obama team and the network, and the previoius sessions haven’t done much to reduce tensions.

If Taitz and the rest of the Birthers had any chance in court, it was with this case, because of Keyes’ inclusion, as well as the presence of two other minor candidates from last fall. Not only did he run against Obama in the Illinois Senate race of 2004, but he also mounted a third-party presidential campaign last year. For this reason, he had an outside shot at showing that he had been personally affected, a key issue in proving standing, which is necessary for a court to take up a case. The U.S. Attorney’s office, arguing on behalf of Obama, had said that because Keyes had no shot at victory, he couldn’t prove standing. (This prompted a moment of levity from Carter, who noted of those who’d voted for Keyes and the other candidates, “The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter.”)

The judge was obviously disturbed by this defense, and he worried about a slippery slope, asking if the argument would have applied to Ross Perot. But, still, he did not find that Keyes and his fellow plaintiffs had standing, because they could not prove “redressability” — that is, they couldn’t show that the court had the power, under the Constitution, to do anything about the wrongs they alleged. This led to one of the more compelling parts of the opinion, an argument about the Constitution itself, and what the Birthers fail to understand about it even as they claim to be its only defenders:

The founders of the Constitution created impeachment to allow an orderly process of transition and succession during which the country can continue to function. Plaintiffs’ request, asking this Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the founders ….

Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People” — over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.

As I’ve noted before, no court decision like this will be enough to kill the Birthers, or the myths about Obama’s birthplace that they’ve been spreading. No conspiracy theory dies that easily, and given that one quarter of Republicans don’t believe the president’s even a U.S. citizen, we should expect that the Birthers will rise from the dead in time for the 2012 election.

But this may be the final blow that ends Taitz’s leadership in the movement. Other leaders had already grown disillusioned with her, and skeptical of her prowess as a lawyer. The end of Carter’s opinion won’t help her on that score:

The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel … to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric.

This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and requested that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel ….

Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.