* Others have linked this, but Adam Davidson’s profile of staunch inequality defender and former Romney Bain partner Eward Conard is a must-read.

* Nice take by Jamelle Bouie on the “endless arrogance of Wall Street” on display in the above profile, and what it may or may not tell us about Romney’s economic worldview.

* David Atkins on the “degree to which the top 0.1% in this country is completely disconnected from the experience of the broader public,” and worse, the ominously dwindling options for fighting back politically.

* Jason Linkins is funny on the “serio-comic lengths the Obama campaign is going to in order to retain any support from Wall Street’s executive class,” and on the sheer futility of those efforts.

* Steve Benen translates Romney’s claim that we should do the “opposite” of Obama on the economy: A shrinking economy and job losses must be preferable to a growing economy and job gains!

C’mon, Steve. Romney’s point is that the economy would be improving more quickly than it is now if we were doing the “opposite” of what Obama has done!

* A key point from E.J. Dionne about the ongoing battle over the killing of Bin Laden:

For the first time since the early 1960s, the Republican Party enters a presidential campaign at a decided disadvantage on foreign policy. Republicans find it hard to get accustomed to the fact that when they pull their favorite political levers — accusations that Democrats are “weak” or Romney’s persistent and false claims that Obama “apologizes” for America — nothing happens.

And yet, as I’ve been saying, the vast majority of the commentary on the dispute over Bin laden death focused on whether Obama was taking a huge political risk, with little to no discussion of what this might mean politically for Mitt Romney and the GOP.

* Relatedly, an interesting suggestion from Wes Clark: “it may be that after this election we finally put to bed the lessons of Vietnam.”

* Claiming victory over Richard Grenell’s resignation, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association makes a pretty interesting claim:

“Mitt Romney has been forced to say, ‘Look, I overstepped my bounds here. I went outside the parameters here. I went off the reservation with this hire. The pro-family community has called me back to the table.”

What are these “parameters,” exactly?

* Ezra Klein has a useful comparison of Romney’s and George W. Bush’s economic platform, and a look at what it means that so little has changed despite vastly different economic circumstances. (link fixed)

* Scott Brown continues robotically repeating the claim that Elizabeth Warren is “elitist,” and confirms his devotion to keeping the race about serious issues by playing the — yup — “George Soros” card.

* But let’s face it: Warren’s latest response to the “controversy” over her American Indian heritage seems awfully weak.

What else?