Today's edition of quick hits:

* A bipartisan group of senators today unveiled new legislation intended to prevent sexual assault in the military.

* Oklahoma: "Three days after one of the most destructive tornadoes to strike Oklahoma in decades, people here [in Oklahoma City] filed into a mortuary chapel Thursday morning amid heavy rain and flashes of lightning for the first of two dozen funerals."

* A shift in posture? "A North Korean envoy, Marshal Choe Ryong-hae, said the North would 'accept the proposal' by China to "open up dialogue," the China News Service reported Thursday. The comments were reported after Marshal Choe met Liu Yunshan, a member of the Communist Party Standing Committee and the politician who heads ideological affairs for the Communist Party."

* House Republicans embraced the one resolution they know won't become law, because they're not especially serious about governing: "The House on Thursday passed legislation to head off a doubling of student loan interest rates on July 1, instead tying rates to prevailing market trends and ending federal subsidies."

* London: "A day after two alleged Islamic extremists brutally killed a British soldier, Prime Minister David Cameron vowed that his nation would not succumb to fear and promised a vigorous investigation into what appears to be this city's first successfully executed terror attack since the coordinated transit system bombings in 2005."

* Ricin: "The FBI has arrested a suspect in a case involving the discovery of a pair of letters containing the deadly poison ricin and says investigators are working "around the clock" to address any remaining risks."

* Middle East: "As he embarked on another round of meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Thursday in an effort to revitalize the peace process, Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged the doubts being expressed on both sides over his chances of success."

* Responsible policymakers need to know when to ignore constituents who are mistaken: "Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Thursday his constituents have suggested they were audited by the Internal Revenue Service because they donated to Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign."

* And when conservative pundits get to the point at which they think sexual assaults in the military may be a secret ploy to divert attention away from White House "scandals," maybe it's time they write about something else for a while.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

We're accustomed to President Obama delivering big political speeches, and thinking about them in political terms -- was the rhetoric persuasive, will various constituencies approve or disapprove, how will the arguments be received, etc. But some speeches are important for reasons that have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with policy.

President Obama's speech on national security this afternoon, delivered at the National Defense University, clearly falls into this latter category. This wasn't about inspirational oratory; this was a war-time president charting a new, more constructive course when it comes combating terrorism.

Indeed, it was arguably a key moment in marking a possible end of the 9/11 era. [Update: Transcript here.]

It's a little tough to summarize, largely because the president covered so much ground, and for detailed analysis, I'd strongly encourage you to tune in to tonight's The Rachel Maddow Show. But for now, let's talk a bit about Obama's approach to national security going forward.

"[M]ake no mistake: our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth. We must recognize, however, that the threat has shifted and evolved from the one that came to our shores on 9/11."

This isn't what the right wants to hear, of course, but it's very much in line with the assessments of nearly all credible experts on counter-terrorism. The nature of the threat has changed, and a responsible U.S. policy must change with it. That the president realizes this is a low bar to clear, but it's nevertheless encouraging.

"America is at a crossroads. We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us, mindful of James Madison's warning that 'No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.' Neither I, nor any President, can promise the total defeat of terror. We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society. What we can do -- what we must do -- is dismantle networks that pose a direct danger, and make it less likely for new groups to gain a foothold, all while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend. To define that strategy, we must make decisions based not on fear, but hard-earned wisdom."

Right. The "total defeat" of a possible terrorist threat, now and forever, is not going to happen, and basing a national foreign policy on such a goal is counter-productive.

"[W]e must define our effort not as a boundless 'global war on terror' -- but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America."

It's a genuine relief to hear a president say this out loud.

"[A]s our fight enters a new phase, America's legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power -- or risk abusing it. That's why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists -- insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday."

All of this was in reference to drone strikes, and while I'm glad the policy has been codified, it's worth emphasizing that this policy was signed "yesterday." That said, Obama went on to explain the fact that the "need for unmanned strikes" will "reduce" once the war in Afghanistan ends, that the U.S. "does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists," and that Congress "is briefed on every strike that America takes."

And what of the civilian deaths? "For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq."

As for the Stand with Rand crowd, the president added, "For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen -- with a drone, or a shotgun -- without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil."

"I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war -- through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments -- will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways."

In this context, it was especially heartening to hear the president tout the benefits of foreign aid as being "fundamental to our national security and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism."

"The Justice Department's investigation of national security leaks offers a recent example of the challenges involved in striking the right balance between our security and our open society. As Commander-in Chief, I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable. Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law."

A media shield law will still be a heavy lift in Congress, but I'm glad it's part of Obama's comprehensive vision.

"The AUMF is now nearly twelve years old. The Afghan War is coming to an end. Core al Qaeda is a shell of its former self. Groups like AQAP must be dealt with, but in the years to come, not every collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda will pose a credible threat to the United States. Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. So I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end. That's what history advises. That's what our democracy demands."

This is no small moment. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the United States adopted a war footing -- and never stopped. What Obama is describing here is a fundamental shift.

As for the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, this is when protestors began interrupting the speech, but Obama nevertheless characterized the prison as a facility that needs to be closed and "should never have been opened." The president is asking for Congress to lift the restrictions; he's appointing a new envoy to complete transfers; and he will demand "judicial review be available for every detainee."

And what about those protestors? It was interesting to hear Obama express some sympathy for their perspective, saying he's willing to cut one of his interrupting critics "some slack, because it's worth being passionate about." After another interruption, he added, "The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to. Obviously I do not agree with much of what she said. And obviously she wasn't listening to me and much of what I said. But these are tough issues, and the suggestion that we can gloss over them is wrong."

It would have been easy for the president to ignore these critics, or dismiss their outbursts as fringe nonsense. I'm glad Obama chose a more substantive approach.

These are just some of the elements from my notes, and whether you agree with it or not, the video of the speech is worth your time. For real analysis, I'd strongly recommend tuning into MSNBC tonight at 9 p.m. eastern.

Associated Press

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Of all the recent judicial confirmation votes, today's was the most important.

After five years of trying, President Barack Obama has placed his first nominee on a key appeals court in Washington.

The Senate voted unanimously on Thursday to confirm Sri Srinivasan to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court is considered the most important in the country after the Supreme Court. The Senate voted 97-0 in favor of his nomination.

Srinivasan is currently the principal deputy in the Office of the Solicitor General. He has worked in both Democratic and Republican administrations and served as a law clerk to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Srinivasan's name also came to public prominence in March: he's the attorney who argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that the Defense of Marriage Act should be struck down.

So why is his confirmation so important? For one thing, the D.C. Circuit is generally considered the second highest federal bench in the nation, behind only the U.S. Supreme Court, in part because it hears so many regulatory cases related to the federal government. President Obama named exactly zero jurists to the D.C. Circuit in his first term, which has proven to be a problem.

Indeed, Senate Republicans, as recently as last month, said they hoped to keep that going indefinitely, preventing each of the president's nominees from reaching the D.C. Circuit for both of Obama's terms. Obviously, as of today, that strategy is no more.

Also note the circumstances that led to today's vote.

[T]his week, Reid used the Senate rules to provoke a confrontation: Technically he filed cloture on Srinivasan's nomination, guaranteeing him at least a test vote this week. More meaningfully, he forced McConnell to choose between sustaining a filibuster against Srinivasan through early June (a move that would have helped Reid build his case for changing the rules this summer) and agreeing to a confirmation vote now (effectively caving).

McConnell caved Thursday morning on the Senate floor. A small cave. But a cave nonetheless.

So, does all of this mean people like me should complain less about judicial vacancies and Republicans blocking the president's nominees? Well, no, at least not yet. Srinivasan's confirmation was a welcome development, but let's not forget that his seat on the D.C. Circuit has sat empty for nearly five years.

What's more, Srinivasan enjoyed unanimous support, but it nevertheless took nearly a full year to confirm him (Obama nominated him last June).

As for what's next, three of the 11 seats on the D.C. Circuit are still vacant. The White House insists nominations for each of these vacancies is on the way.

Postscript: If you haven't already heard the scuttlebutt, Srinivasan is already being talked about as a possible Supreme Court justice in the future. In other words, remember the name.

Associated Press

It's an election year in Virginia, and it doesn't help the state Republican Party that its slate of statewide candidates are dominated by right-wing extremists. It also doesn't help that the outgoing Republican governor of the commonwealth is in the middle of a scandal that now has an outside prosecutor.

Virginia's attorney general has appointed an outside prosecutor to investigate Gov. Bob McDonnell's financial disclosures, in a widening scandal over a political donor who wrote a $15,000 check for the wedding of the governor's daughter, and who was also a benefactor of the attorney general.

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the attorney general, who is also the Republican candidate for governor this year, said on Wednesday that he named the outside prosecutor last November to look into Mr. McDonnell's disclosures.

Mr. Cuccinelli said "information came to my attention" triggering the appointment of the prosecutor. His referral of the case to the Richmond commonwealth's attorney, Mike Herring, whose role is similar to that of a district attorney, "was not a conclusion that any violation occurred,'' Mr. Cuccinelli said in a statement.

Cuccinelli did not, by the way, make this announcement proactively, but rather, acknowledged the investigation after the Richmond Times-Dispatch uncovered the investigation through a Freedom of Information Act request.

What's more, it's not immediately clear whether Cuccinelli appointed an outside prosecutor because he's caught up in the same controversy, because the governor is currently working to help elect the state A.G., or perhaps a combination of the two.

Regardless, the scandal is an increasingly serious problem for the Virginia governor. For background on what the story is all about, take a look at our previous coverage.

Getty Images

Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.)

The ongoing congressional debate over the Farm Bill has made clear just how eager Republicans are to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, the program formerly known as food stamps). Despite high unemployment, a Senate committee approved striking $4.1 billion from the program over 10 years -- and the House GOP is looking for cuts five times as large.

Helping lead the way is none other than Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.), who balked when Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee urged Republicans to remember "the least of these." The Tennessee Republican, defending the cuts, countered with 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat."

As a theological matter, this isn't constructive -- as Jack Jenkins explained, the Bible verse "was actually referring to ancient Christians who had stopped working in anticipation of Jesus' Second Coming. The verse is concerned with correcting a theological misunderstanding (i.e., don't just wait around for Jesus, live an active faith), not passing judgment on the poor."

But wait, it gets much worse.

A Tennessee congressman who supports billions of dollars in cuts to the food stamp program is one of the largest recipients of federal farm subsidies, according to new annual data released by a Washington environmental group.

Using Agriculture Department data, researchers at the Environmental Working Group found that Representative Stephen Fincher, a Republican and a farmer from Frog Jump, Tenn., collected nearly $3.5 million in subsidies from 1999 to 2012. The data is part of the research group's online farm subsidy database from which the group issues a report each year.

In 2012 alone, the data shows, Mr. Fincher received about $70,000 in direct payments, money that is given to farmers and farmland owners, even if they do not grow crops.

So, the guy who's trying to slash assistance for struggling families, arguing that it's necessary to cut spending and let the poor fend for themselves, is also the beneficiary of generous agricultural subsidies? This Tea Party Republicans wants the Department of Agriculture to give him money, but not the poor?

Yep, pretty much.

Note, we've known about the generous taxpayer-financed subsidies Fincher collects for a while -- I first wrote about it in April 2011 -- and the fact that they seem to contradict his political ideology. Asked two years ago whether he's prepared to stop taking these agricultural subsidies, Fincher wouldn't say.

But that was before he started pushing aggressively for cutting food stamps, which makes this story considerably worse.

During the committee debate, Fincher declared, "We have to remember there is not a big printing press in Washington that continually prints money over and over. This is other people's money that Washington is appropriating and spending."

Right, and Washington has been appropriating and spending our money by giving it to wealthy farmers like congressman Fincher.

Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R), already struggling in advance of his re-election campaign, was asked at an event last week whether he has any Latino staffers. "No, we do not have any staff members in there," the governor responded. "If you can find us one, please let me know."

* In Massachusetts' U.S. Senate special election, billionaire Tom Steyer is gearing up to boost Rep. Ed Markey's (D) prospects. "NextGen, working with our local partners, will be seeking to be a politically disruptive force between now and Election Day," reads the memo sent by Chris Lehane, a spokesman for Steyer's NextGen super-PAC, to the PAC's campaign team, and obtained by The Hill.

* Remember former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R), the failed former presidential and gubernatorial candidate? The anti-immigrant conservative announced this morning that he'll be running for governor in Colorado once again in 2014.

* In Iowa, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Gov. Terry Branstad (R), now in his fifth term, with a fairly strong 49% approval rating. The same poll, however, found a 43% plurality does not believe he deserves a sixth term.

* Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) now has the support of a super PAC. The name isn't subtle: Rand PAC 2016.

* Despite being in the minority, the House Democrats' campaign committee narrowly outraised their Republican counterparts in April, $5.4 million to $5.1 million.

* Despite being in the minority, the Senate Republicans' campaign committee narrowly outraised their Democratic counterparts in April, $3.56 million to $3.54 million.

* And in Utah, Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love (R) is looking for a rematch against Rep. Jim Matheson (D) in 2014.

Getty Images

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), like a few too many pundits, is eager to find a common thread connecting the various political controversies of the day. And in a new Washington Post op-ed, the Republican leader thinks he's found it: that rascally President Obama has created a "culture of intimidation."

Remarkably, Mitch McConnell overcame his fears of Obama's heavy-handed thugs just long enough to write the op-ed. What a trooper.

But what can be done to combat this president's crushing culture of intimidation? Don't worry, the Senate Minority Leader knows just what to do.

[R]ecent efforts to revive the so-called Disclose Act suggest that these tactics are alive and well in Washington. This bill, which would force grass-roots groups to make their member and donor lists public, may seem benign to some. But as a longtime defender of the First Amendment, I have always seen it for what it is: a backdoor effort to discourage those who disagree with the Obama administration from participating in the political process. [...]

Oddly, some on the left are now arguing that the IRS scandal is reason to revive the Disclose Act. But if this scandal has taught us anything, it is that Washington's ability to target individuals and groups is already too expansive.

Wait, what? It's scandal-mania, Republicans are openly speculating about impeachment, and McConnell's worried about campaign-finance laws? Actually, yes. As Ed Kilgore explained:

You have to hand it to Mitch McConnell. While other scandal-mad Republicans are off on a wild goose chase that could well end in 1998, McConnell's focused on exploiting scandals to promote his very favorite cause, and his special gift to the corruption of American politics: hiding the identity of big campaign donors. His op-ed in today's Washington Post aims at convincing us that conservative donors obviously need anonymity because they will otherwise be persecuted by Obama-inspired bureaucrats and union thugs.

In other words, McConnell's op-ed is just shameless opportunism -- he's killed campaign-finance disclosures in the past, desperately wants to prevent them in the future, and figures now is as good a time as any to leverage controversies that have nothing to do with campaign finance to push his favorite argument.

In case anyone's forgotten, the Disclose Act (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections), was a pretty modest proposal. Proponents have argued it's corrosive to our democracy to have secret donors quietly funneling millions into the elections process.

And since Democrats and Republicans have traditionally agreed that disclosure and transparency is the key to preventing corruption, the Disclose Act's authors saw it as a rather mainstream idea -- those who donate $10,000 or more to organizations that spend money on political campaigns could not do so in secret.

Republicans killed the proposal last summer, with McConnell leading the way. Secret donations, he said, are critical and must be protected.

As of today, McConnell is still saying the same thing, but now he has a new talking point: we must shield major donors from disclosure or the big bad Obama meanies will somehow punish them with something.

Associated Press

There's quite a bit of interest lately in political controversies and efforts to connect them to the White House, but as an electoral matter, there's a limit to the utility: President Obama won't be on the ballot again.

But, Republicans argue, there will be important midterm elections in November 2014, and if the public has soured on the president, it's likely his party will be punished accordingly. Democratic dreams of taking back the U.S. House majority will be dashed, and the Senate Democratic majority, already weakened by retirements, will be in jeopardy.

It was therefore interesting to see the new Washington Post/ABC News poll ask the generic-ballot question: "If the election for the U.S. House of Representatives were being held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate in your congressional district?"

If the various "scandals" are hurting the president's party, it is not yet reflected in the data: Democrats lead Republicans on the generic ballot by eight points, 48% to 40%. There's no recent trend line, but late last month, Quinnipiac released a similar poll, and it showed Dems with a four-point advantage.

For context, note that shortly before the 2006 midterms, when Democrats took back both chambers, they also had an eight-point lead in a Washington Post/ABC News generic-ballot poll.

I remain skeptical of House Dems being able to pick up a net gain of 17 seats -- redistricting tilted the playing field against them heavily -- but so long as they enjoy an advantage this large over the GOP, it's at least possible.

Associated Press

Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)

For all of the partisan disputes on Capitol Hill, lawmakers tend to get along fairly well when it comes to sanctions against Iran. Lawmakers in both parties want more of them, and want them to harsher and more punitive.

But Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) seems a little more eager than most on this subject. Zach Carter reported that the Arkansas Republican introduced a measure yesterday to not only punish those who violate U.S. sanctions against Iran, but would also "automatically" punish the family members of the transgressors.

The provision was introduced as an amendment to the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013, which lays out strong penalties for people who violate human rights, engage in censorship, or commit other abuses associated with the Iranian government.

Cotton also seeks to punish any family member of those people, "to include a spouse and any relative to the third degree," including, "parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews. nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids," Cotton said.

"There would be no investigation," Cotton said during Wednesday's markup hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "If the prime malefactor of the family is identified as on the list for sanctions, then everyone within their family would automatically come within the sanctions regime as well. It'd be very hard to demonstrate and investigate to conclusive proof."

Hmm. Let's say some folks decided to roll the dice -- they circumvented U.S. sanctions against Iran and got caught. The law would, naturally, hold them accountable. But under Cotton's vision, that's insufficient -- we would also have to go after the transgressors' parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

That Cotton is prepared to exclude criminals' third cousins twice removed is evidence of his magnanimous restraint.

What if the transgressors' great children didn't know anything about the dealings? It doesn't matter. In fact, there'd be no point in even trying to find out -- "There would be no investigation."

After some committee discussion, Cotton ultimately pulled his proposal, but the fact that he recommended it anyway says something interesting about his worldview.

And who's Tom Cotton? The 35-year-old congressional freshman has been quickly embraced by the political establishment, already having made three Sunday show appearances this year. The Weekly Standard makes no effort to hide its affection for the congressman, and Politico recently described Cotton "an angular soldier-politician ... seemingly destined for higher office."

The same piece described the Arkansas Republican, a veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as "his party's most aggressive next-generation advocate for military action overseas," and the "last, best hope" for the "hawkish Republican elites."

He also believes that when it comes to evaluating the Bush/Cheney record on national security, 9/11 doesn't count.

From time to time, I enjoy marveling at the kind of questions that appear in ostensibly neutral Fox News polls. This latest entry only helps reinforce suspicions that the network asks questions intended to get an ideologically satisfying result.

C'mon. Does anyone seriously believe an independent poll would ask whether respondents feel like "the federal government has gotten out of control"? I think it's far more likely Fox wanted to tell it's viewers about results that reinforce a preconceived narrative, so it asked a question to illicit a predictable response.

As for the underlying point, it's also worth noting that Fox did not ask whether the public believed "the federal government has gotten out of control" when the Bush/Cheney administration said warrantless wiretaps of Americans were legally permissible.

Let's also not overlook the larger polling pattern. I've long marveled at the kind of questions that make their way into a Fox survey, starting in March 2007 when the network's poll asked, in all seriousness, "Do you think the Democratic Party should allow a grassroots organization like Moveon.org to take it over or should it resist this type of takeover?" Soon after, another Fox poll asked, "Do you think illegal immigrants from Mexico should be given special treatment and allowed to jump in front of immigrants from other countries that want to come to the United States legally, or not?"

In 2009, a Fox poll asked, "Do you think the United Nations should be in charge of the worldwide effort to combat climate change and the United States should report to the United Nations on this effort, or should it be up to individual countries and the United States would be allowed to make decisions on its own?"

In March 2013, a Fox poll asked, "Former President George W. Bush stopped golfing after the start of the Iraq war. Do you think President Barack Obama should stop golfing until the unemployment rate improves and the economy is doing better?"

As a rule, professional news organizations put a great deal of care into how they word polling questions. To get reliable results that accurately reflect public attitudes, surveys have to be careful not to guide respondents or skew their answers.

It's possible Fox is less concerned about accurately reflecting public attitudes.

Associated Press

Following up on an item from March, President Obama's Republican critics spent a fair amount of time in 2012 condemning the administration's loan to Tesla Motors. In the final months of the race, it was a standard line of attack: the president was recklessly using our money, Mitt Romney said, to "pick losers." Obama was so irresponsible, he even invested in Tesla.

Romney was so fond of the criticism, he even brought it up during one of the debates. Paul Ryan joined in on the fun, condemning Tesla's loan on the stump as well.

Oops.

The taxpayer no longer has to worry about Tesla Motors.

Tesla, the maker of electric cars, paid off a $465 million loan on Wednesday that the Energy Department made in 2010. The repayment is a lift to the Obama administration, whose clean-energy loan programs faced criticism after the collapse of Solyndra, the solar panel maker. The company, using money it raised last week in the markets, is repaying the government nine years before its loan was due. [...]

Elon Musk, who co-founded and leads Tesla, issued a statement thanking the Energy Department, Congress and taxpayers for the loan. "I hope we did you proud," he said.

Time will tell whether Tesla is able to build a model of sustained success, but at least for now, the rhetoric about the Obama administration's Energy Department loan program picking "losers" appears off the mark. The Obama administration took a chance on an innovative company, and now that company is paying taxpayers back -- ahead of schedule.

And what of the complaints that federal funds shouldn't go to subsidize car companies that cater to the rich? It's not an unreasonable point -- taxpayers helped boost an auto manufacturer selling a product that the typical American consumer cannot afford. But proponents of the loan program would argue, persuasively, that the United States benefits from a burgeoning electric-car manufacturing sector and two administrations of different parties saw value in helping get that sector off the ground. In time, as the industry grows, prices fall, and environmentally-friendly cars will be far more common.

Also note that the right hasn't just complained about this company, but the loan program itself, which Republicans generally supported under the Bush/Cheney administration, only to change their mind after President Obama took office.

It's true that some of the program's investments were more successful than others. It happens. But it's also true that on balance, the program conservatives love to hate is looking pretty good.

"Today's repayment is the latest indication that the Energy Department's portfolio of more than 30 loans is delivering big results for the American economy while costing far less than anticipated," Ernest Moniz, the energy secretary, said in a statement. [...]

"Tesla is arguably making the most exciting car in the world today," said [Greg Kats, president of Capital-E, a firm that invests in clean-energy companies], who worked in the Energy Department during the Clinton administration. "This loan program has exceeded expectations."

Fortune's Dan Primack added this morning that there is "now a very real chance" that the Department of Energy loan program "will end up in the black."

Though last week's report on initial unemployment claims was a jolt of unexpectedly bad news, the new figures out this morning point in a more encouraging direction.

The number of people who applied for new unemployment benefits fell by 23,000 to 340,000 in the week ended May 18, the U.S. government said Thursday, keeping the level of initial claims in a range consistent with modest job growth. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch expected claims to drop to a seasonally adjusted 343,000. The average of new claims over the past month, a more reliable gauge than the volatile weekly number, edged down by 500 to 339,500, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's just above a five-year low.

To reiterate the point I make every Thursday morning, it's worth remembering that week-to-week results can vary widely, and it's best not to read too much significance into any one report.

In terms of metrics, when jobless claims fall below the 400,000 threshold, it's considered evidence of an improving jobs landscape, and when the number drops below 370,000, it suggests jobs are being created rather quickly. We've been below the 370,000 threshold 20 of the last 23 weeks, and below 350,000 in five of the last seven weeks.

Above you'll find the chart showing weekly, initial unemployment claims going back to the beginning of 2007. (Remember, unlike the monthly jobs chart, a lower number is good news.) For context, I've added an arrow to show the point at which President Obama's Recovery Act began spending money.