Former Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein speak during an event to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Watergate.

This week the Washington Post had an event to commemorate Watergate after 40 years, on the 11th floor of the Watergate office complex. The sixth floor, where the actual break-in of theDemocratic National Committee occurred, was vacant and contained paintings of the figures from that historic event.

I found myself wandering through those empty rooms, nearly alone, looking at that rogue’s gallery. It was like being surrounded by ghosts from an era I am old enough to remember well.

It was quite an evening, featuring Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, John Dean, Bud Krogh, Sen. Bill Cohen (a freshman on the House Judiciary Committee in ‘74), Gov. Bill Weld (an officemate of Hillary Rodham on the Impeachment Committee), Sen. Fred Thompson, and Richard Ben-Veniste. Ben Bradlee, of course, was honored for having a spine of steel during that most trying time.

[Find out about the women of the Senate.]

What struck me most was that this was not so much about Watergate, a “third rate burglary” as Nixon’s Press Secretary Ron Ziegler called it, but about power and wielding it with absolute abandon.

That period of break-ins and dirty tricks and loyalty, not to the country or the Constitution, but to one man, as Bud Krogh put it, is far from a new story. Nor is it something that is entirely behind us. As Bill Cohen pointed out, our system of secret money in politics and unlimited and unbridled super PACs are corroding our system and have the real potential to further polarize and pollute democracy.

We forget now the wiretaps of the National Security Council staff, reporters, and enemies; we forget the burglary of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office or the suggested robbery and firebombing of the Brookings Institution; we forget the deep paranoia and efforts at illegal acts against political opponents. It was much more than the Watergate break-in or the cover up. It was a pattern, where no one close to Nixon stood up and said, enough, this must stop. The loyalty was to the president, not to the rule of law.

[Check out our collection of political cartoons on Super PACs.]

It also struck me how far we have come in our politics—how winning is the end, not the means by which we operate. What does being in office represent if not to get things done, deliver for the people you represent, move the ball down the field? Is this all about ending up in an ideological straight jacket where we cannot escape to do the people’s business? Is it right to so hate your opponents that you can’t find a way to work together? Is it right that Washington’s political paralysis is trickling down to local cities and towns where the Tea Party’s incivility has made it impossible to govern?

We saw America at its best and at its worst during that Watergate period. Our press worked, our legal system worked, Congress worked. Sadly, we are now in a different era. When 70 percent of Americans believe that Congress has made our economic problems worse and their approval ratings are barely in double digits, we have reached a different kind of danger zone than 1974. Very little is working.

The lesson from Watergate came from those on that stage who stood up and told the truth, who bucked their party and their president because it was right, who listened and learned and worked their hearts out because they believed that honesty and integrity mattered. They were all young then, 40 long years ago, but they have lived their lives as examples of what is good and decent and honorable since. We owe them. God willing, there will be more like them.

As the saying goes, politics ain’t bean bag. The notion that campaigns, especially those for president, consist of two candidates discussing the great issues of the day in all their intricate details while hardly raising their voices or going after one another is, and always has been, pure fantasy. These political battles have always been fierce fights from the very early days of our republic.

Witness the latest period of the Republican primaries when former Gov. Mitt Romney and his surrogate super PACs aired almost exclusively negative ads—against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Gov. Rick Perry, and finally, former Sen. Rick Santorum. Those candidates, with much more limited resources, attempted to do the same against Romney. At the end of the day, this was a very tough primary race with Romney using his financial advantage to bury his opponents in negative advertising.

So those who would charge that somehow President Obama’s campaign is being too negative towards Romney are either living in a dream world or engaging in radical hyperbole in an effort to, in fact, attack Obama.

There are several points about this year’s campaign that deserve exploring.

First and foremost, it has started earlier and with more velocity than any presidential campaign in history. There is no waiting until the conventions; there is no hitting the pause button after a candidate is nominated; there is no waiting until after Labor Day to begin the “fall campaign.” We are already in the thick of it.

Second, the amount of money being spent this year dwarfs anything we have ever seen. Despite a tough economy people still seem to have plenty of excess cash to donate to the presidential race.

Third, the Citizens United case has allowed millionaires and billionaires to write seven- and eight-figure checks to provide the fuel for attack ads—with the overwhelming amount going to the Republicans in support of Mitt Romney. The estimate is that Romney will have a billion dollars in outside money alone to fund anti-Obama ads, over and above what he is raising.

Finally, the stakes are very high this year. We have two candidates with vastly different political philosophies and approaches to government running for the highest office. We have a Republican Party taken over by the most radically conservative elements we have seen in several lifetimes. There could not be a wider disparity in how to fix the economy coming from these two parties. The rhetoric is heightened, the polarization has hardened, the fervor on both sides is at a fever pitch.

For Obama to not engage in the battle, to focus on soft, fuzzy, feel-good ads would be a drastic mistake. The Romney team doesnot want the campaign to be a comparison of the two candidates and their records and approaches; they want it to be a simple referendum. They would simply like to avoid making this a choice between two candidates. That is why they prefer to be on the attack from the start.

Romney’s blackboard is far from filled up. As president for 3 1/2years, most Americans know a great deal about Barack Obama. Most independents and undecided voters, most voters who have not truly focused on politics and the November elections, know very little about Mitt Romney.

It is up to the Obama campaign to make it clear what Romney did and did not do at Bain Capital—he made money, and lots of it; he did not engage in a job creation enterprise. He availed himself of foreign tax shelters in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands to avoid U.S. taxes. He used tax loopholes to enrich himself and his friends with the carried interest deduction. This is all fair game. This is a far different “business” record than Mitt Romney would like voters to be examining.

It is up to the Obama campaign to compare and contrast their tax and budget policies with Romney, who seems to favor $5 trillion more in tax cuts, mostly to the wealthy, adding to the deficit. Making the Bush tax cuts permanent and lowering the top tax rate for millionaires and billionaires even further won’t trickle down—they will exacerbate our budget problems and have a reverse-Robin Hood effect.

It is up to the Obama campaign to provide a real analysis of who will help and fight for middle class families, those who are hurting from the Wall Street meltdown, and which policies will further drive the middle class down. Romney has to offer more than bromides to explain the Ryan budget and the cuts to Medicare, education, Head Start, student loans, infrastructure revitalization, foreclosure relief, and on and on.

It is up to the Obama campaign to make it clear where our domestic auto industry would be if Romney’s advice of not providing loan guarantees had prevailed. By letting them go bankrupt, America would have very possibly been put into a true depression.

So, my belief is that the Obama campaign is not too negative at all—certainly not when compared to the Romney operation. In fact, there are a lot more issues to discuss, a lot more of Romney’s record in Massachusetts to focus on, a lot more positions on issues to explore. The more the Obama campaign turns up the power on the microscope, the better for a reasoned and reliable judgment by the voters.

The notion that the press or the pundits will do your work for you when it comes to providing the compare-and-contrast elements of a campaign is long out the window.

The Romney team learned that lesson in the primary, now it is the Obama campaign’s turn.

The debate is on. The Obama forces and the Mitt Romney campaign are dueling back and forth with ads and heated rhetoric about Romney’s record at Bain Capital.

Actually, this debate began during the Republican primary season, when Romney was eviscerated by his probusiness foes vying for the nomination. Rick Perry called the Bain approach to business “indefensible,” “inherently wrong,” “vulture capitalism,” and Newt Gingrich called it “exploitation.” So, those who are worried that the critique of Romney’s role as a corporate raider is somehow a criticism of American capitalism or is somehow antibusiness should play back the Republican primary debate tapes.

Here are the fundamental questions about Romney and Bain: Did they help middle class, working families; did they create hundreds of thousands of jobs in America; was this American business at its best?

The answer, in my view, is clearly no. This is not George Romney running American Motors, this is not Steve Jobs creating Apple, this is not Ray Kroc developing McDonald’s. This is Wall Street run amok, with little regard for jobs lost, pensions lost, debt piled up, lives and communities left in tatters. The sole purpose of Bain Capital was to make money, and lots of it, for themselves and their investors. It was not to rebuild companies and rebuild lives. It had nothing to do with job creation.

If this is the Romney business “experience”—thanks, but no thanks.

The scary part of the Bain experience is that we have a candidate who favors $5 trillion in tax breaks, mostly for the wealthy, while unfairly targeting middle class families. The budget and tax policies advocated by Romney and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin are inherently unfair to working families and continue the shift in income and benefits to those who have prospered this past decade.

In short, the Romney platform and the Romney experience at Bain point to a potential president who delivers for the well-to-do, not those who have been hurt by the economic collapse.

So, why does Romney favor, for himself and his wealthy friends, tax breaks to put money in Swiss bank accounts and the Cayman Islands? Why does he support carried interest deductions for the wealthiest Americans that allow him to only pay 14 percent in taxes? Why will he not admit that just because he can afford the lawyers and fancy accountants does not make it right?

Romney’s problem is that he is not supportive enough of real, fair, honest American capitalism—he is too tied to fast and loose Wall Street “exploitation” that got us all into this economic mess in the first place.

One can argue strongly that these money-making tactics have done far more harm than good to our economy and to American businesses over the past 20 years. That is why Bain and Wall Street excesses are so important to main street voters. That is why this debate about America’s future course is so important this election year.

A dozen years ago I was honored to be asked to give the commencement address at my daughter’s graduation from high school. I was quite puffed up about it, until I realized I had to actually come up with something that a) wouldn’t embarrass her, and b) actually might be the least bit moving or interesting. Then, of course, panic set in, and I did my best.

My old boss, Sen. Frank Church, who was a noted orator and wrote great speeches, once told me that the hardest speeches he would ever give were when he traveled the state every year to talk to graduating seniors.

I have sat on the stage at my alma mater, Macalester College, as a member of the board of trustees, listening to speeches for every one of the last 18 years.

[College Students Split on Political Graduation Speakers]

I have heard some pretty decent talks from some very famous people and some not so famous.

But this year, the college’s president, Brian Rosenberg, who is a very thoughtful and articulate guy on any day, knocked it out of the park. Our regular commencement speaker was terrific, too, but Brian’s talk was a charge to the graduates—short, sweet, and to the point.

It seems to me that those of us involved in politics and public policy, those who care about the direction of our country, might want to heed his words.

So, for the benefit of all of you, I include Brian Rosenberg’s talk here:

Good stories get told and told again, and I want to begin my brief remarks this afternoon by sharing with you a good story. It was originally told by Jeff Bezos, the multibillionaire founder of Amazon, at the 2010 commencement ceremony of Princeton University, and then recounted recently in a speech by Bill Bowen, Princeton’s former president.

It goes like this. As a child, Bezos spent a great deal of his time in the summer traveling the country in the back of the Gulfstream trailer owned by his beloved grandparents—a pair of Texas cattle ranchers. Being clever, he also spent a great deal of time doing quick mathematical calculations. During one trip, while his grandmother, as was her habit, sat smoking in the passenger seat, he used some information gleaned from an anti-smoking commercial and from his observation of his grandmother, did a bit of mental math, and declared proudly, “Grandma, so far your smoking has taken nine years off your life!”

Rather than the expected congratulations on his quantitative adeptness, what he witnessed instead was his grandmother bursting into tears.

The lesson he learned from that moment, the lesson delivered with great gentleness by his grandfather, is one he has tried to carry with him for the rest of his life: cleverness is a gift; kindness is a choice. Each of us should in the end be judged not on the basis of our gifts but on the basis of our choices.

Every one of you graduating from Macalester today is in possession of remarkable gifts. Without those gifts—those talents, abilities, passions—you would not have been admitted to and would not have been successful at this rigorous college. You have also received the additional gift, thanks to your families and to the peerless faculty and staff at Macalester, of an education whose quality and value far transcend what most people in the world, indeed most people in the United States, could ever imagine.

But in the end your lives will be judged less by the nature of these gifts than by the nature of the choices you make about how to use them.

The ability to argue effectively is a gift; civility is a choice. The skills, education, and social mobility necessary to acquire wealth are a gift; generosity is a choice. The capacity to formulate clearly one’s own thoughts is a gift; the willingness to take seriously the thoughts of those with whom one disagrees is a choice. Self-confidence is a gift; tolerance and humility and selflessness—these are choices.

We at Macalester can say with some confidence that during the past four years we have enhanced your gifts. We have tests and metrics and grades to tell us that this is the case. What we cannot know with equal certainty, but what we devoutly hope, is that we have also increased the likelihood that you will make the right choices, that is, the kinds of choices that will contribute to the bettering of the world we all share.

My experience with those who have graduated from this college over many decades tells me that for most of you, we have indeed increased that likelihood. My observation of you during the past four years tells me the same thing.

There are certainly some in these challenging times who would tell you that your only responsibility is to make choices that are in your own best interest. There have always been those ready to make that argument, and their voices tend to be loudest and most influential when people are afraid. Do not follow their counsel. At Macalester we don’t respond to fear by retreating to our worst impulses, but by thinking and by working to change for the better those things that are making people afraid. We do not marginalize or demonize those who are most vulnerable or who are different from ourselves; we engage with, empathize with, and when necessary assist them. We do not restrict for any group basic human rights and dignity; we offer up these things, with humility and grace. We do not build walls; we open doors. This is our history, and this is the great tradition you are about to inherit as alumni.

So let me offer you my congratulations on completing successfully your course of study at Macalester and on moving from one great community on campus to another—the community of Macalester graduates—that is more far-flung and less connected on a daily basis but that is also large, impressive, and tied together by and through a commitment to the values of the college.

Be well.  Enjoy life. Make good choices.

The president did the right thing on announcing his support for gay marriage.

This issue is still viewed by some as a wedge issue — maybe, maybe not. It remains to be seen whether it will cost the president in the upcoming election. But, as usual, he made his decision on what he believes is right.

The critics are screaming about flip-flopping (hard to believe, coming from the Mitt Romney supporters).

But think about the president’s statements about his views “evolving” on the issue.

That is precisely where most Americans have been these last few years … evolving. Few hardcore social issues have seen this much change in public opinion this fast. Americans’ views have been seriously evolving. From 62-30 percent opposed to gay marriage in March of 2004 to 49-40 percent in favor a couple of months ago. Going from over 2-to-1 against to almost a majority supporting in a very short time.

Let’s face it, this is an issue of tolerance and fairness. The American people get that. Plus, it is personal. Nearly everyone knows someone who is gay, many have family members who are gay, lesbian or transgender. We are a society that understands what love is, that understands what stable relationships are, that celebrates openness and transparency.

Consider the incredible acceptance of interracial marriages. I looked it up. According to Gallup, 86 percent of Americans in 2011 supported interracial marriages; “universal acceptance” was the term they used.

In 1958, do you know the percentage of Americans who favored interracial marriages? It was 4 percent — 4 percent. By 1968 it had grown to 20 percent, by 1978 it was 36 percent, by ’88 it grew to 48 percent, by ’98 it was 64 percent.

I venture to say that views certainly evolved on that issue; it is clear that the cultural transformation is happening much faster with gay marriage, faster than any of us would have predicted a decade ago.

The clear message is that the train has left the station. In 10 years we will look back on the statewide ballot initiatives, such as the one that just passed in North Carolina, and truly wonder, what the hell were we thinking?

Former Rep. Steve Gunderson, president and CEO of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, recently wrote a letter to U.S. News to rebut my previous posts about for-profit colleges.

This was on the heels of President Obama’s call for a crackdown on predatory  practices on military families by the for-profits—his “know before you owe” plan.

I would like to make one thing very clear: My columns and my statements are not a wholesale condemnation of all these schools or all these programs. Long-distance learning and online courses are here to stay. This is not, as Mr. Gunderson characterized it, a “witch hunt.”

This is about the facts accompanying a remarkable growth in these for-profits and the remarkable cost to the taxpayers that they represent. I find it odd that a strong fiscal conservative Republican such as Mr. Gunderson and his party’s presumed presidential nominee, former Gov. Mitt Romney, would be advocating that billions be spent on what has been shown too often to be fraudulent and totally ineffective education programs.

Here are the facts that Mr. Gunderson did not refute:

FACT: This has become a $30 billion industry, virtually all of the money coming from federal loans and grants. A few years ago, the numbers were $4 billion in Pell grants and $20 billion in loans plus the G.I. Bill. Student numbers have grown from 365,000 to 1.8 million in just a few years.

FACT:  According to the Department of Education, (as reported inThe Washington Times), 26 percent of all student loan money and 46 percent of all student loan dollars in default come from for-profit programs, despite the fact they account for just 12 percent of college students.

FACT:  These schools aren’t cheap—despite the lack of campuses or classrooms or counseling or even much personal interaction with faculty members. Again, according to the Education Department, (as reported in USA Today), for-profits cost on average $30,900 per year compared to public colleges at $15,600 and private, non-profits at $26,600.

FACT: According to a U.S. Senate report, 2 million students withdrew from the large for-profits in a three-year period, and of those who enrolled in the 10 largest chains in 2008-2009, 54 percent had withdrawn by the summer of 2010.

FACT:  Slick TV ads and bounty-paid marketers swallowed up $3.7 billion last year. It is taxpayer money—you’re paying for it!  The Apollo group, which runs the University of Phoenix, spent $377 million on advertising, more that Apple. (The 15 largest for-profits spent 23 percent of their operating costs on marketing according to a Senate report.)

[Students at For-Profit Colleges Earn Less, Study Says]

FACT: Not enough of this taxpayer money is going to educate students—for-profits devote less than one third of the money that public institutions do to instruction. It is even less than one fifth of what private non-profit institutions provide (Department of Education). Those are huge and disturbing gaps.

FACT: This has become big business. Taxpayer money has lined the pockets of millionaires—the top executives of the top 15 for-profit colleges pulled in $2 billion last year. The president of Strayer University was awarded a package of $41.9 million!

FACT:  As the New York Times reported last December, these for-profits spent $16 million dollars on lobbyists to confront the Obama administration, members of Congress like Sens. Tom Harkin and Dick Durbin, and many others, to prevent any legislation.  Instead of “cleaning house” the for-profits sought to “clean up” by keeping those federal dollars rolling in. Courageous members Harkin and Durbin have stood their ground against the onslaught.

Finally, there is the issue that President Obama and Holly Petraeus and many others have highlighted: the predatory approach these for-profits have utilized when dealing with our veterans. We are talking about 700,000 veterans with education benefits, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. Last year, of the $4.65 billion spent under the G.I. Bill, one-third, or $1.65 billion, went to for-profits.

Recruiters have entered hospitals signing up vets with severe brain injuries, as PBS and Holly Petraeus documented at Camp Lejeune, N.C.–no counseling, no explanation of what is involved, just sign here, it is free money.

The incentive for these for-profits is not just to sign up more students but it is to use the loophole in the 90-10 rule which requires these schools to at least have 10 percent of their funds not from the taxpayers, not from Title IV education funds. The G.I. Bill, even though it is government money, is not technically Title IV, so it counts toward the for-profits 10 percent requirement.

To quote Holly Petraeus: “This gives for-profit colleges an incentive to see service members as nothing more that dollar signs in uniform, and to use aggressive marketing to draw them in.”

This has gotten seriously out of control and President Obama was right to put the brakes on these practices.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Should the Lower Interest Rate on Stafford Loans Be Extended?]

We are wasting taxpayer dollars, short changing those who desperately need training and college, and putting money in the pockets of those who believe there is a quick buck to be made.

It is time for groups like Mr. Gunderson’s to get a handle on his own industry and crack down, and not to deny the disturbing trend or sweep it under the rug as only “a few bad apples.” It isn’t about the lobbyists and the big profits, it is about the students and their futures.

When state and community colleges are facing devastating cut backs, private colleges are feeling the squeeze, and fewer and fewer families believe they can afford college, isn’t it better to ensure that for-profits are part of the solution, not part of the problem?