Washington teeters on the brink. If there is no agreement on a budget by midnight on Friday, the federal government will shut down. While cops and soldiers, air traffic controllers and others deemed essential won't down tools this is serious, at least according to the Obama administration. A senior administration official has told us loans to small businesses and home buyers will stop, which will have an impact on an already fragile housing market. Military and civilian workers won't be paid. The lions at the zoo will be fed (and unlike last time their waste should be collected) but the gates won't open to visitors. National parks will close. This is, of course, the most serious, as I am planning a vacation to one of them next week.

I am just back from the Capitol, and talking to people at a Tea Party rally. Their view might be summed up as "bring it on!" They were chanting "Shut it down!" Several made the point that if non-essential parts of the government shut down, they'd be quite happy. If it's not essential, the view is, then the government shouldn't be doing it anyway.

I suspect there will be a deal. There is too much for both sides to lose in the blame game that would follow. But the strength of the Tea Party has already made it hard for their leadership to compromise, and will make selling any deal tough. President Barack Obama and the Democrats don't have quite the same problem but the cuts he has accepted have already upset supporters.

Compromise is a peculiar business, I reflected as I started reading a book called At the Edge of the Precipice, by Robert Remini, the former historian of the US House of Representatives. It is about the 1850 compromise over slavery. He writes that the man at the centre of this, Henry Clay, "understood the importance of compromise... each side must feel that it has gained something that is essential to its interest as the result of the compromise. To achieve that goal each side must surrender something important to the opposing side. Both sides can then claim victory."

His contention is that compromise prevented an early civil war that the North would have lost, having neither leadership nor material to win at that stage. The argument is that it prevented the splitting of the US into two nations and thus was a good move. All history is hindsight, but I am uncertain about praising an agreement on the grounds that it turned out that it came unstuck later with better results. It was hardly the argument at the time. And compromises depend who is at the table. The compromise was between white gentlemen, while the slaves themselves had no say. Perhaps they might have had some thoughts about the value of compromise.

What's this got to do with today's politics? Simply that like Mr Remini, most Americans admire politicians who can behave with dignity and find a way through a difficult problem, by giving and taking. Bipartisanship is one of the highest ideals of US politics. But many of the politicians might question the morality of this. Enough of them might see the matters of practicality and principle at stake as too important to allow the other side to claim any sort of victory.

The president has cancelled his travel plans and says he expects an answer on whether a government shutdown can be averted by Friday morning, Washington time. He says: "I'm not yet prepared to express wild optimism", but sounded stern about the consequences of failure, particularly damage to a fragile recovery. "For us to go backwards because Washington couldn't get its act together is unacceptable."

He could be simply preparing the way for failure and claiming the moral high ground. But If that was the case I think we would have heard from John Boehner, the Republican leader in the house. They appear to be on the edge of a deal. What to look for next is how enthusiastic or otherwise are the Tea Party about any such agreement. If there are very few moans then the Republican leadership will have pulled off something of a coup.

Both sides looked over the brink and didn't like what they saw. Or rather they couldn't peer through the fog of competing narratives to see what was at the bottom of the abysses. I tend to think that at the start the American people would blame "politicians" in general without bothering to distinguish their party.

Some Democrats think it would be a straight replay of the last shutdown in 1995. Newt Gingrich badly miscalculated, was blamed for the shutdown and was forced to give way. It was seen as a turning point in the Clinton presidency which had been in the doldrums until this victory. Incidentally it had another huge impact. During the shutdown, in an understaffed and quiet White House, one intern was at work and had an opportunity to be alone with the president. Bill met Monica and the presidency was never the same.

That aside, many think this wouldn't be a straight repeat of 95. Bill Walker, who's still close to Newt Gingrich, was an influential deputy chief whip at the time. He told me: "I think in many ways it would be different than 95, because I do get the feeling, when I'm back home in Pennsylvania, that people have come to the conclusion that when a country reaches the point that its debt is equal to its gross national product, that country is in trouble.

"I think the blame is likely to vastly more divided. Clearly, the partisans are going to come down on the side of their party affiliations, so the question is - where do the independents come down?

"And, by every measure, so far the independents have said they are extremely concerned about the situation we're in with regard to debt, so if they come to the conclusion that Republicans have stood on principle, i think the Republicans will get at least a percentage of the independent vote."

Perhaps this is so. But there are huge risks on both sides. Even if a breakdown is averted today, there are many more moments yet to come over budget, debt and deficit. Late night crisis meetings at the White House may become a fixture.

President Obama said he wanted an answer on a budget deal by the morning. That deadline has passed. The talking goes on but the blame game is on in earnest. If there is a shutdown it will do deep damage to the image of one or both parties. The two sides can't even agree what it is they disagree about.

The Democrats are doing a better job of setting the narrative. John Boehner made a mistake allowing the president to speak for him last night and issuing a joint statement with Harry Reid. He is not doing a good job of setting the narrative.

The Republicans insist the argument is about the size of cuts. The Democrats say it is about ideology. Harry Reid's case is that the remaining issue is a Republican demand to take funds away from Planned Parenthood. Although this is a group that funds abortions he says it is illegal for federal money to go towards this. As far as I can see he is factually correct.

So Mr Reid argues the Republicans are holding up the budget because they want to attack cancer screening for women. He says if that sounds ridiculous, it is because it is ridiculous.

By contrast John Boehner, tense and strained before the microphones says it is about the size of the cuts. He says few policy issues remain. But he won't answer the question whether Planned Parenthood is one of them. He is not trying hard to set out his side of the story. I am not arguing that the Republicans don't have a case. But they are not making it with any verve or enthusiasm. Mr Boehner's lack of fighting spirit suggests that he accepts he will get the blame for a shut down.

Everyone is breathing a sigh of relief. Everyone in my family, that is. We are about to take some holiday, spend some time taking friends round the sights of Washington DC and then visit a national park. Now these attractions will stay open for business.

I am sure many Americans share this sense of relief - that their government has not shut down, and for more serious reasons than mere avoidance of holiday season disappointment.

There's little doubt that it would have made America look rather ridiculous and people would have blamed politicians as a class.

But who are the winners and losers?

The Republican leader, Speaker John Boehner, is a clear winner. Had there been a shutdown, his party would have suffered, and his authority would have been damaged. He negotiated skilfully between the Democrats and his own ardent members and won a deal that many independents will welcome as sensible and necessary.

For the Tea Party movement, too, it is a success. They have made their agenda Washington's agenda. They have stiffened the steel in their leadership's spine to hold our for deeper cuts. But if they complain that this is not enough, or that they've been betrayed, they will look petulant and fall into a Democrat trap - that of looking and sounding like extremists.

The social conservatives, for a time insisting on a rather incoherent anti-abortion policies tacked onto the budget ("fungible money" doesn't make it into a soundbite), risked disaster for their party.

They appeal to a minority in the country and look politically irresponsible - a danger to their party's electability and the purity of the Tea Party's economic and constitutional messages.

The Democrats as a whole don't come off well. They look like realists, but they've given a lot of ground. These cuts will hurt their natural supporters and undermine plans and projects dear to their hearts. The tactics were quite skilful but I can't see the strategy .

President Obama has made the best of a bad job. He has tried to celebrate the agreement as the American virtue of compromise in action. He made himself look like an honest broker, standing for sensible compromise, rather than the deeply involved player that he is. He did a good job of making a shutdown sound really scary, and so pushing the Republicans towards a deal. But once again he looks like a skilful chairman, rather than a leader. The cuts he has had to accept will, I imagine, undermine important parts of his programme.

With bigger battles ahead, over the 2012 budget, the debt ceiling and the deficit, President Obama has yet to explain how he will fund hope and pay for change. By welcoming the deal, as he must, he has embraced a pared-down vision, accepted something smaller and meaner than he offered in 2008.

It was obvious this blow was coming after last year's elections, but it is a serious blow to the presidency nonetheless.

I'll be back in a couple of weeks.

Annapolis, Maryland

"I don't care where he was born. I just wish he would do something abut gas [petrol] prices," a man in Chick and Ruth's diner on the main street of Annapolis in the US state of Maryland told me.

That is the sort of reaction President Barack Obama hopes for. His message is that the fuss about where he was born is bemusing, puzzling, silly and a "sideshow" distracting from the huge economic issues facing America.

But Mr Obama had to kick over the sideshow if the customers at the diner were anything to go by. Most people I spoke had a hazy perception that there was something slightly untrustworthy about the document released by the Obama campaign two and a half years ago. Most thought this had dragged on far too long and deserved to be cleared up.

The argument that Mr Obama isn't eligible to be US president because he wasn't born in the US was once thought to be the preserve of the political fringes, those whose "birther" nickname equates them with the "truthers" who believe 9/11 was carried out by the US government.

But it was plonked centre stage by potential Republican candidate, billionaire property developer and TV star Donald Trump, who has said several times that he doubts Mr Obama was born in Hawaii and that he has put private detectives on the case.

Mr Trump was in New Hampshire today doing multiple stops in this key state. Mr Obama's press conference both stymies his big day and gives him even more publicity. Mr Obama's aim must be to make him look deeply unserious.

Many Obama supporters feel racism motivates the birthers - disbelief that a black man can be an American president. Some birthers are opponents who hate his values so much they think he must be un-American literally as well as metaphorically.

But there's no doubt his team has handled this appallingly.

They have today released the full birth certificate. In 2008 they released a "certification of live birth". The White House communications director writes:

When any citizen born in Hawaii requests their birth certificate, they receive exactly what the president received. In fact, the document posted on the campaign website is what Hawaiians use to get a driver's license from the state and the document recognised by the federal government and the courts for all legal purposes. That's because it is the birth certificate.

That appears to be true, and the Hawaiian authorities were apparently reluctant to publish the full thing. But what could be more delicious to conspiracy theorists than the existence of an unseen document that apparently the authorities were keen to keep from the full public gaze?

In Chick and Ruth's I found a full variety of views about the issue. A waitress said it was crazy that anyone ever doubted when Mr Obama was born, an older man still thought that his president may have been born in Kenyan and wanted to study the document. A younger man had no real doubts but thought this was overdue.

It may not go away. I have already had one e-mail from someone who said he had no interest in were Mr Obama was born but claimed the new document had been doctored.

But one thing is very clear. I was in Annapolis filming a story on the economy, and nearly every customer I spoke to ended up talking, unprompted, about the price of petrol. That was the real issue for them. Like the president, they regarded anything else as a sideshow, albeit an entertaining one.

President Barack Obama is making it clear that the killing of Osama Bin Laden didn't occur by accident - and that it happened while he was in charge. He told former Presidents Bush and Clinton what he was about to announce before he made his televised White House statement. I am sure he resisted any suggestion that he had done what they had only talked about. Yet he made it clear that his administration had been determined.

The president said that on taking office he had told the CIA that the al-Qaeda chief's death or capture was to be the agency's top priority. Senior administration officials say that he chaired five meetings in March working out the plans for this attack. It's really not clear to me if the political leadership makes much difference to operations like this, but it is certainly the impression Mr Obama wants to linger.

The raid took 40 minutes. The intelligence operation took years. It started with the search for a courier, perhaps something of a misnomer for a senior aide to Bin Laden, one of the few men he trusted, according to prisoners who had been interrogated. Four years ago they uncovered his identity. The very high level of precautions the man took made them all the more suspicious. Two years ago they discovered the areas in which he operated. Last summer they identified the compound, in an affluent suburb of Islamabad. Eight times the size of similar homes in the area, it had 18ft-high walls topped with barbed wire and inner walls 7ft high. A large place, worth a million dollars, but with no phone, no internet access. The CIA believes it was purpose-built to hide Bin Laden.

The US didn't tell the Pakistanis about the compound or about the raid until it had happened. That may create some diplomatic friction.

But the mood in America is exultant. As Twitter proclaimed the death of Bin Laden, before the president spoke, crowds gathered outside the White House, waving the stars and stripes and chanting "USA, USA". This is not a country that does quiet satisfaction. This is a cathartic moment for the nation, a moment when America's military might, know how and sheer will power seem to have come together to produce a result.

At a time when there are so many doubts about America's role in the world, and so much economic gloom, there is something clear and plain about celebrating the "rubbing out" of a bad guy, an enemy. The president has been congratulated by even his opponents, and this success allows him to appear grimly resolute in pursuit of America's core interests.

Senior administration officials say Bin Laden's death is not just a symbol, it removes a charismatic and respected leader whom al-Qaeda cannot replace. The official suggests the organisation is on a downward path that will be difficult to reverse. The domestic implications for Mr Obama are in the opposite direction, but may be just as important.

America has waited a long time, more than 10 years, for this moment of justice and revenge. President Barack Obama is making the most of it. He has said: "I think we can all agree, this is a good day for America. Our country has kept its commitment to see that justice is done. The world is safer. It is a better place because of the death of Osama Bin Laden."

The US has had agonised debates about the wars it has been involved in and its role on the world stage. The American reaction to Bin Laden's crimes, the invasion of Afghanistan, the Iraq War, have riven the nation. But most will see the killing of Bin Laden very simply, as an act without shades of ambiguity. The good guys shot the bad guy dead. Mr Obama is trying to use it to repeat one of his main messages: how the country should come together.

"Today we are reminded that as a nation there's nothing we can't do when we put our shoulders to the wheel, when we work together, when we remember the sense of unity that defines us as Americans."

He praised the people who celebrated.

"We've seen that spirit, that patriotism in the crowds that have gathered here outside the White House, at Ground Zero in New York, and across the country, people holding candles, waving the flag, singing the national anthem, people proud to live in the United States of America."

But there is an interesting word of warning in a thoughtful article for NPR by Foreign Policy writer David Rothkopf. The author reflects: "Sept 11 was not Pearl Harbor. Al-Qaida was not and is not a historic enemy like World War II's Axis powers. Bin Laden is not Hitler."

It is a point worth making. Bin Laden could create terrible suffering and appalling disruption, but he could never actually have won. If World War II had gone a different way, Hitler or his henchmen could have ruled from Downing Street. There was never any danger of Bin Laden taking over the White House.

America has had its moment of justice. Maybe it is a moment of closure too.

Obama got Osama.

That's what some people chanted when the news of Osama Bin Laden's killing broke. But will it have any impact on the President Barack Obama's politics and popularity?

Mr Obama has gone out of his way to stress that "get Bin Laden" was his direct instruction and that the arch villain's death is, in part, his victory. White House officials are doing all they can to capitalise on what looks like a mood of nationwide elation.

Any president who "got" Bin Laden would benefit. Former President Bill Clinton's efforts were mocked by George W Bush. Then he failed too, losing Bin Laden in the caves along the border land, as US soldiers stood by.

But perhaps Mr Obama will benefit more than most. His style of decision making is to take time, to deliberate, to chew over every option. His critics call it dithering. There are now some excellent "tick tocks" as they are called here - blow by blow accounts of the decision making process. But you always have to remember all sources are in the circle, and liable to portray the president positively. It sounds as if Mr Obama gave this decision as much time and thought as all the others but away from the public gaze.

Not only did Mr Obama's security advisor John Brennan praise him, but Republicans have even called his decision "gutsy". He did not simply go for bombs or drones but rather a helicopter raid. One insider is quoted as saying that Black Hawk Down was mentioned a few times in the discussions. When that helicopter did go down, Mr Obama surely thought of Jimmy Carter and Iran.

So he's a risk taker, too. It also makes him look focused on what is truly in the US's national interest. You can argue Iraq wasn't, Libya wasn't, even Afghanistan no longer is. But getting the head of al-Qaeda clearly was a number one priority in the minds of many Americans, and Mr Obama decided it was his as well.

Even habitual enemies, indeed even Rush Limbaugh, have praised him. At a reception for Republicans and Democrats last night, he got a standing ovation.

So the wind is behind him. Whence will he sail? At a White House dinner for members of Congress, he used Bin Laden's killing as a call for unity.

He said: "We were reminded again that there is a pride in what this nation stands for, and what we can achieve, that runs far deeper than party, far deeper than politics."

From Bin Laden, he moved effortlessly to domestic public enemy number one, the deficit. "It is my fervent hope that we can harness some of that unity and some of that pride to confront the many challenges that we still face," Mr Obama said.

On Thursday, Mr Obama will travel to New York City to remember those who died in Bin Laden's assault on America. I expect more talk of unity but perhaps some big foreign policy themes as well. There are those who think the halo of success makes it easier for the president to confront a military that wants July's Afghanistan wind-down to be small and fairly insignificant. Others, however, think the momentum runs the other way, and that it gives all the more reason to stay and finish the job.

So the killing sends waves that will wash against these shores and those of a wider world. Some are saying this moment assures Mr Obama's re-election. It assures no such thing.
Apart from the obvious point that there can be many other unexpected events that will have an impact, positive or negative, It just doesn't work like that. However huge this event snow seems, wait a couple of months. In the relentless frenzy of the 24-hour media cycle, it will probably be half forgotten by the the time of the election.

This far out, only events that mean change to people's lives on a day-to-day basis have that sort of game changing impact. But image is important. The president has burnished his in the eyes of many Americans and looks like a resolute commander-in-chief. He knows it, and intends to milk the moment for all it is worth.

The White House has had to correct its facts about the killing of Bin Laden, and for some that has diminished the glow of success that has surrounded all those involved in the operation.

Bin Laden wasn't armed when he was shot. It raises suspicions that this was indeed a deliberate shoot-to-kill operation.

Here are the inaccuracies in the first version. The woman killed was not his wife. No woman was used as a human shield. And he was not armed.

The president's press secretary Jay Carney suggested this was the result of trying to provide a great deal of information in a great deal of haste.

I can largely accept that. There is no mileage in misleading people and then correcting yourself. But the president's assistant national security advisor John Brennan had used the facts he was giving out to add a moral message - this was the sort of man Bin Laden was, cowering behind his wife, using her as a shield. Nice narrative. Not true. In fact, according to Carney this unarmed woman tried to attack the heavily armed Navy Seal. In another circumstance that might even be described as brave.

Jay Carney said that Bin Laden didn't have to have a gun to be resisting. He said there was a great deal of resistance in general and a highly volatile fire fight. The latest version says Bin Laden's wife charged at the US commando and was shot in the leg, but not killed. The two brothers, the couriers and owners of the compound, and a woman were killed on the ground floor of the main building. This version doesn't mention Bin Laden's son, who also died.

By this count only three men, at the most, were armed. I do wonder how much fight they could put up against two helicopters' worth of Navy Seals.

Does any of this matter? Well, getting the fact right is always important. You can't make a judgment without them. We all make mistakes, and journalists hate doing so because it makes people trust us less. For those involved an operation like this, time must go past in a confused and noisy instant, and they aren't taking notes. Confusion is very understandable. But you start to wonder how much the facts are being massaged now, to gloss over the less appealing parts of the operation.

And of course there is the suspicion that the US never wanted to take Bin Laden alive. Here at least many see a trial as inconvenient, awkward - a chance for terrorists to grandstand. Look at all the fuss about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

In the confusion of a raid it's hard to see how the Seals could be sure that Bin Laden wasn't armed, didn't have his finger on the trigger of a bomb, wasn't about to pull a nasty surprise. If he had his hands in the air shouting "don't shoot" he might have lived, but anything short of that seems to have ensured his death.

I suspect there will be more worry about this in Britain and Europe than in the US. That doesn't mean we are right or wrong. It is a cultural difference. We are less comfortable about frontier justice, less forgiving about even police shooting people who turn out to be unarmed, perhaps less inculcated with the Dirty Harry message that arresting villains is for wimps, and real justice grows from the barrel of a gun. Many in America won't be in the slightest bit bothered that a mass murderer got what was coming to him swiftly, whether he was trying to kill anyone in that instant or not.

Thanks for reading this: my blog is moving to a new home. The idea is to bring all my work and analysis together on one page: the blog, of course, but TV and radio pieces and [very soon] my tweets too. It's a great idea, and one the BBC is applying to most of the other editors and correspondents who blog.

I tend to use Twitter to link to either what I've written myself or to the work of colleagues, inside or outside the BBC. But that may change over time, as I see the virtue of live tweeting. The true worth of Twitter was shown on Sunday, when it gave us the first inkling that Osama Bin Laden was dead. Not all the speculation about the details was right but the one huge fact was.

The way I approach Twitter and news on the internet is very much driven by the way I consume it. The built TV bulletin is very far from going the way of the dodo but I want to be able to watch crafted reports online too. This new page should allow this and more.

Zach Osterman and Chronic Hoosier discuss the commitment of big man Logan Duncomb in the latest 'Mind Your Banners' podcast

He showed enough as a freshman to suggest IU has a bonafide Big Ten shooting guard in Armaan Franklin, waiting to be developed.

Wisconsin AD Barry Alvarez announced his school will not submit waivers for spring-sport seniors to regain a year of eligibility.

Cardaño-Hillary leaves George Mason as the school's all-time leading scorer and was named Atlantic 10 Player of the Year last season.

Indiana women's basketball roster retooling has hit overdrive the past few days.

Tiawan Mullen, who will be a sophomore, has been throwing questions at IU football cornerbacks coach Brandon Shelby all spring

High school football and track standout for the Royals appeared in two games for Hoosiers

IU alum and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban pitches an idea to Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari as if he was a 'Shark Tank' contestant.

Nicole Cardaño-Hillary wanted to take her game to another level after setting records for three seasons at George Mason.

In this time of social distancing and online learning, athletic departments across the country have scrambled to embrace flexibility.

Todd Yeagley is confident his players will carry out workouts and improve despite not being able to practice together.

The Hoosiers' offensive line loses key leaders, with graduation of Simon Stepaniak and Hunter Littlejohn and transfer of Coy Cronk.

Tennessee standout Chloe Moore-McNeil signed with Indiana basketball on Wednesday.

Webster's Emmitt Holt spent 64 days in the hospital, lost 50 pounds, had eight feet of intestines removed and returned to play college basketball.

When Dennehy was asked if he would've fired Knight, he said yes. But he would have done it 15 years earlier when Knight hurled a chair across the court.

Kalen DeBoer's departure for Fresno State gives Nick Sheridan chance to lead Indiana's high-powered offense.

Indiana projects to return more 2019 production than almost any other team in the country.

IU basketball coaching legend got to see Michael Jordan up close as part of the 1984 U.S. Olympic team; Knight came away quite impressed.

Larry Rink has been with the Hoosiers basketball program for four decades and has also served in the U.S. Navy.

Peyton Henderson had been suspended in the wake of an incident for which he still faces a court hearing.

Tom Allen discusses how the Hoosiers move toward the fall when they can't work together. 'It's a universal challenge.'

After a record-setting career at South Bend Riley, he rarely cracked the Hoosiers lineup in two seasons.

Simon Stepaniak started 31 games for the Indiana Hoosiers, mostly at guard; that's the second year in a row an IU guard was picked.

Michael Jordan spent the spring of 1984 in Bloomington before he became Michael Jordan

The sophomore big man tweeted #Unfinished Business. He would have to declare for the draft Sunday night.

The Packers selected the Hoosiers' offensive lineman in the sixth round.

Anthony Leal put individual numbers aside at Bloomington South. The result was a 26-0 record.

"I know he is going to do a great job of continuing to move Indiana athletics in the right direction," Steve Alford said of Scott Dolson.

Tom Allen and his staff will have positional questions to work whenever they can bring the Hoosiers back together.

Tom Allen dreams of a top-25 defense. Indiana might be ready to give him one.

The renewal deadline is May 15 with 5% down to start. Refunds will be provided for unplayed games

What Trayce Jackson-Davis' decision to return to Bloomington for his sophomore season means for Archie Miller and the Hoosiers.

A fixture in IU's starting lineup for most of the past two years, Smith averaged 10.4 points and 5.2 rebounds per game in 2019-20.

IU Insider Zach Osterman sits down with Chronic Hoosier to answer your questions, talking everything from IU sports to Btown eats to memories and more

"I could miss 15 shots, and I always have the mindset that the next one's going in," Grace Berger says. "I'm not worried about those other shots."

Holloman, a three-star prospect from Auburn Hills, also had offers from West Virginia, Nebraska, Maryland, Iowa State, and Central Michigan, among others.

Anderson, a 6-7 wing from South Bend, put his name in the transfer portal exactly a week ago.

IU baseball, softball working out expanded rosters

Hoosiers are scheduled to start the season against Wisconsin and finish with the traditional Old Oaken Bucket game.

McGraw, a three-star defensive end, announced his decision Sunday via Twitter.