Allow me to take a moment to thank one James “Jamie” Dimon, the chairman, president and CEO of JPMorgan Chase.

Before Dimon disclosed last week that his bank had lost — that is, lost as in “holy crap!” not as in “misplaced” — roughly $2 billion on risky trades, Americans were at risk. With the “Occupy” movement now officially boring, we were at risk of forgetting just what it is we hated about Wall Street and the big banks in 2008.

Back then, the world as we know it, was busy collapsing, and Americans were outraged to discover that the global banking system was actually one giant casino, only the high rollers at the craps table were backstopped by Uncle Sam. Banks were no longer just making loans and replacing tellers with ATM machines. They were gambling on risky securities; credit default swaps (most people still don’t know what those are), and securitized subprime mortgages.

I think we all know how that worked out.

Read the whole thing here.

By the way, shareholders are now suing.

Dimon in the hot seat

I didn’t make that term up, though I wish I had. But I can tell you a lot of people have it. Bad, after JP Morgan Chase honcho Jamie Dimons steps in it, big time. A flashback: recall that Dimon was the guy who complained the loudest (well, maybe some of his Wall Street pals stomped harder…) about “unfair” banking regulations and the “demonization” of Wall Street by President Barack Obama. Now, it turns out Obama and Congress probably should have made Dodd-Frank even stricter — I’m sure that’s what JP Morgan Chase’s investors, who are out $2 billion, are thinking right now.

Meanwhile, Dimon has reportedly retaped his “Meet the Press” interview, which should make Mother’s Day fun.

Happy weekend, Jamie! No, actually I don’t mean that…

Dick Lugar lost his bid for re-election yesterday, ceding the primary to a tea party candidate. But he didn’t go quietly.

Here’s a clip from Lugar’s exit letter:

Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

Read the whole thing here.

And here’s one Hoosier’s take on what the tea party has wrought.

President Obama came out in favor of gay marriage today, delighting his base and making life potentially very awkward for one Willard Mitt Romney.

Whatever the potential pitfalls for Obama (potential drop-off among marginal shares of working class white voters, disgruntled black pastors and some black evangelicals, the occasional charge of political opportunism, and the possibility that it still won’t be enough for some in the Obama base….) the perils for Romney seem greater.

Here are five reasons why:

1 Evolution

Obama, who has wavered on the issue over the years, appears to have evolved in the direction that just about everyone thinks is his true, underlying belief. Romney, who doubled down on his opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, has undergone an evolution of his own. Despite some evidence that he might have been faking, Romney claimed when he was running for the Senate against Teddy Kennedy that he would be better for gay rights than the liberal lion. Today, few in Romney’s own camp believes he is evolving into his true self. In fact, they don’t know who his true self is.

2. Say the words

Obama had taken heat from gay rights activists, liberals and young supporters for not speaking up for gay marriage. It’s probably the most common reason cited for Obama disappointment on the left. People like Lt. Dan Choi weren’t even willing to give him credit for signing the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell because he wouldn’t say the words. Now that he has, even Choi is cheering him on. Meanwhile, all Romney can do is hunker down and pray that Tony Perkins doesn’t call, because unlike Rick Santorum, it’s not clear Mitt even knows the words evangelical conservatives want to hear. (That said, there is certainly a risk that this issue may energize evangelicals in November, even without Romney’s help.)

3. Upside, downside

For Obama, the upside in getting on the side of his base on gay marriage appears to outweigh the downside. He will be received as a hero at tomorrow’s George Clooney fundraiser, rather than facing the inevitable awkward moment during the Q&A. He will energize younger people, liberals and liberal donors. And his stance could diffuse the tension, and it has been building, between black Obama supporters and gay rights supporters/liberals who have been demanding this for nearly four years. Romney, by contrast, has no discernible upside. His reiteration of being against gay marriage won’t help with evangelicals OR with white suburban and young voters. But it does remind a lot of GOPers that they would have liked Santorum better. Plus, because people don’t see him as genuine, Romney looks even more like a hapless creature of his increasingly far right party.

4. Playing to type

Obama being for gay marriage fits what most people believe about him: that he is socially progressive, even if sometimes political pragmatism makes him reluctant to appear too liberal. Romney also reinforces the baseline image people have of him, by saying he has been entirely consistent on the marriage issue … since he began running for office. Doh!

5. The history thing

Even people who personally disagree with Obama on same sex marriage will agree that he made history today. What presidents say has a lot of power, and carries tremendous social and historical weight. For Romney, the historic look of fighting too fiercely against gay marriage would not be good. And he and his party will probably prefer to steer as clear of it as they can … or rather, as clear as the religious right will let them.

Let’s be clear: the country is basically 50-50 on gay marriage. Every time it’s put to a vote, even in the blue state of California, restricting marriage to a man and a woman passes, overwhelmingly. People are, on the main, more in favor of civil unions or domestic partnerships. But that’s mostly because older Americans remain opposed. Younger people, including people my kids’ age, are for gay marriage, meaning that in 20 years, gay marriage will almost certainly have overwhelming support. The right will ultimately lose on this. And gay people aren’t ever going to settle for civil unions. So Obama has essentially gotten ahead of the history, rather than allowing himself to remain behind it. Is that smart politics? It’s hard to say, and frankly it may not matter. Politics is about risk, and clearly, President Obama took a risk that he wanted to take, whatever the consequences.

Barber is a pastor, and also the president of the NC NAACP.

President Obama has also weighed in against the proposed law, though he’s taking heat from gay rights groups for not being more forceful on the issue. (I happen to agree with Michael Tomasky’s view on this, for what it’s worth.)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And why it matters…

The trouble for Romney is that his shrinking in the face of an obvious opportunity to stand up for decency, reinforces the notion of his fear of his own base, and his inability to stand on principle, assuming we understand what his principles are. Not a good narrative builder if you want to be leader of the free world.

It’s Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh all over again.

It’s tempting to suggest that while Romney is busy inventing the notion that President Obama goes around “apologizing for America” — something that is demonstrably false, he ought to spend less time going around apologizing for the extremists inside the Republican party.

And now for your bonus tracks …

And one more:

Next: Shep reacts to Mitt Romney, reacting to Newt’s tepid endorsement:

I don’t watch Fox News. But I might have to start checking out Shep from time to time. (Hat tip to The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell.)

In which I take on Paul Ryan and his devotion to Ayn Randism...