This daily post is a clearinghouse for links to posts that either flew by too fast, didn't get the attention they deserved, or are so good they need to be up even longer...

ANYONE can link a post here, and we encourage you to do so. The post is only as good as its links. If you do add a link, please describe it briefly and tell us why it deserves another look.

As long as the archives are messed up, this is the only way to preserve good posts!

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take the time to rec this post, even if you don't read any of the links or add anything. It only works if it makes it to READER REC everyday. If it barely makes it, it gets bounced off and good posts are lost.

Yesterday's Post

FOOD: Farmer in Chief

Michael Pollan

After cars, the food system uses more fossil fuel than any other sector of the economy — 19 percent. And while the experts disagree about the exact amount, the way we feed ourselves contributes more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than anything else we do — as much as 37 percent, according to one study. Whenever farmers clear land for crops and till the soil, large quantities of carbon are released into the air. But the 20th-century industrialization of agriculture has increased the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the food system by an order of magnitude; chemical fertilizers (made from natural gas), pesticides (made from petroleum), farm machinery, modern food processing and packaging and transportation have together transformed a system that in 1940 produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil-fuel energy it used into one that now takes 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce a single calorie of modern supermarket food. Put another way, when we eat from the industrial-food system, we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases. This state of affairs appears all the more absurd when you recall that every calorie we eat is ultimately the product of photosynthesis — a process based on making food energy from sunshine. There is hope and possibility in that simple fact.

FUEL: IEA has published their World Energy Outlook, and here is a 37 page PDF of the executive summary. Update: The IEA has not published the report and has asked ASPO Australia to remove the executive summary. But I got a copy.

According to the executive summary, we face two related challenges:

• Continuing to find and afford enough energy to run our society.

• Using energy that doesn’t destroy our environment.

The World Energy Outlook makes some recommendations, most of which involve increased spending by governments, which is troubling in a time of high unemployment and frozen credit.

I ask myself whether President Obama’s energy initiatives will be effective, or will be part of an energy investment bubble.

Rob at Transition Culture is momentarily encouraged by Obama:

I never thought I would see a US President who actually took climate change seriously, talked about a Green New Deal for the US, and whose policies included;

• Reduce the US’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050 and play a strong positive role in negotiating a binding global treaty to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol
• Withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months and keep no permanent bases in the country
• Establish a clear goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons across the globe
• Close the Guantanamo Bay detention center
• Double US aid to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015 and accelerate the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculoses and Malaria
• Open diplomatic talks with countries like Iran and Syria, to pursue peaceful resolution of tensions
• De-politicize military intelligence to avoid ever repeating the kind of manipulation that led the US into Iraq
• Launch a major diplomatic effort to stop the killings in Darfur
• Only negotiate new trade agreements that contain labor and environmental protections
• Invest $150 billion over ten years to support renewable energy and get 1 million plug-in electric cars on the road by 2015

but commenter Joanne reminds us that Obama is somewhat beholden to a pro-growth economy that includes ‘clean coal’, ethanol and nukes.

Obama or no Obama, we aren’t going to get a “savior” from the top. We can’t hold our breath in anticipation of his promised “changes”. We need to (continue) creating those changes ourselves.

Despite her reservations, I think Obama would, and will, agree with her warning, and will look for both business and individual contributions towards a solution.

Dear Democrats,  You won!  Big time!  Joe Lieberman did not get you there and he did not stand impartially and idly by.  At this point, you are embarassing yourselves trying to woo his return to your fold.  You had to call him to the meeting???   He should be the one begging you to return to the Democratic fold given his present position.  Every other representative in New England is democratic.  He barely won against the democratic candidate before the Wall Street collapse.  Next time, he will not win.  If he does, the Democrats will have a lot more to worry about then Joe Lieberman.   Jumping Joe jumped to the other side without having the gumption to admit it.  But if it looks like a duck, walks with the ducks, and sounds like a duck, well....      

Forget Joe Lieberman.  He has forgotten you.  Get someone leading his committees that is lower maintenance then that prima donna.  With a changing of the guards in Congress, time would be better spent training an impressionable new guy to lead Lieberman's committees, then persuading a self-righteous old guy to advance your agenda.  Once he is unencumbered, Lieberman will be just another Senator and just one more vote.  He will be, well, independent.  So if he wants to continue the illusion he is independent, give him wha the wants.  Not having a chairmanship ought to help him convince himself of he really is independetn.  It would be more honest of him, however, to declare himself the Republican he has been since his re-election.   

There were some unique characteristics of TPM Café: First, we had depth of subject in our conversations, second, we had long threads, and third, we had a variety of subjects. The latter was made possible by having Discussion Posts that had to achieve enough votes to even get posted. And once up, they stayed for a very long time. The first was made possible by the second and third points. New visitors tended to comment that they had found nothing to equal TPM on the web, and I haven't heard about any serious competition since.

It was apparent that something had to change, when all ad content was server-delivered, content-linked, and needed fast-loading pages compatible with the system. And changes were made, but at the expense of most of the defining character of the Café.

Read more »

As neither candidate in the Georgia Senate race received enough votes on November 4th to win outright the race will now be decided by a runoff, scheduled for December 2nd. The outcome of this runoff is critically important for several reasons.

The Republican incumbent, Senator Saxby Chambliss, is one of the most conservative serving US politicians. Saxby Chambliss is against comprehensive sex education, vehemently pro-life, anti-gay, has an abysmal civil rights record, and is the biggest proponent of a regressive flat tax in the Senate. On the stump Chambliss encouraged his predominately white Georgian audiences to get out and vote with racially charged scare tactics, warning that as a result of Obama's influence "those other folks" were already voting in record numbers.

Chambliss won his seat in 2002 partially as a result of an infamous ad comparing his Democratic opponent, war hero and triple-amputee Max Cleland, to Osama Bin Ladin. "Saxby Chambliss won his Senate seat in the final days by putting my picture next to Osama bin Laden and lying about me. It was despicable, but it worked," wrote Cleland. "This year, we can't let Chambliss use the same vile tactics to defeat Democratic challenger Jim Martin."

More important still, the outcome of this runoff could determine the fate of the many key progressive issues which will be under consideration over the next two years. In the last session of Congress important legislation was passed in the House but defeated in the Senate by the threat of Republican filibuster, including bills dealing with renegotiating prescription drug prices, reunionizing the workforce, creating new (democratic) congressional seats for DC, and progressive components of the bailout program. Each new democratic seat in the Senate greatly increases the chances of these measures finally passing.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AI396_Filibu_NS_20081016214818.gif

Because of the compressed timeframe and high stakes this race could be even more intense than the original election. Already McCain and possibly Palin, Romney, Huckabee, and Guliani have committed to campaigning for Chambliss, while Obama has begun producing ads for Martin. Additionally, turnout in special elections is always lower than in regular elections, so rallying the base will be even more important. Unfortunately after his last race Martin is almost out of money with which to do this.

This runoff is remarkable because of where Martin is running, what he stands for, who he is running against, and what his election would mean for the progressive agenda in America. For all these reasons please consider making a donation at http://www.martinforsenate.com/

Government organizations are neither immortal nor unshrinkable. We face a future dominated by resource scarcity. Our choices are two: a change to iron government with civil liberties diminished and resources allocated from the central government.  Or a change in values away from material consumption, a gradual withdrawal from our fascination with economic growth and more efficient use of resources, especially raw materials. The preferable future might not be the most probable future and this prospect should trouble us deeply. 

Responding to readers' complaints that the Washington Post was biased towards Barack Obama during the campaign that just ended, Deborah Howell said:

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barcack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts 

Deborah Howell continues to reinforce this widely shared assessment of her work.

In Sunday's column, she examines her own paper's coverage of the election campaign, and detects a pro-Obama tilt. Her evidence is rigorously scientific: so many front-page Barack Obama photos, so many Obama stories, so many opinion pieces, vs. lesser numbers for John McCain. Howell detected and denounced a similar imbalance back in August.

Ms. Howell, maybe that simply reflects the fact Obama was the better, more exciting candidate and ran campaign circles around McCain. Given how disorganized, unfocused and all-around terrible his campaign was, consider the possibility that McCain benefited from having less coverage of it.

This notion that numerical parity equals fairness and balance is bad enough when it is used to justify he-said-he-said news items that fail to note one side is lying. But the Post ombusman appears to think it trumps journalistic judgment.

Even when Howell is correct, her rationale is flawed. The Post's coverage of Sarah Palin weren't all "hatchet jobs," she concludes. There were "good" stories as well. 

Look, Palin was the most dangerously unqualified VP candidate in living memory (worse than Quayle). Coverage that glossed over that glaring fact would not have been fair and balanced; it would have been the most irresponsible kind of journalism. 

A throwback to a 2005 Roast of Rahm. 5:10 is simply..............MASTERFUL

 

 Voila!

Bush should grant citizenship to Obama's aunt before he leaves office. 

In These Times offers its 22 picks for Obama's Administration. Have you picked your own preferences? If passionate, have you communicated your choice somehow to the transition team? It ain't illegal to push a bit - there's more to democracy than just voting. So let Barack know you still care - write in who you want or perhaps who you don't want. Productive kvetching, rather than just kibbitzing from a safe distance.

Between Biden as VP and Rahm as COS it appears as though Obama has created a a top level team to help push his legislative agenda.

I find it interesting that every day we are hearing of people who would refuse a position in the new administration.

Cross-Posted FromThe End of the American Century.

I argue in The End of the American Century that the U.S. has already lost its global supremacy. But can it recover it? In a globalized and interdependent world, both the country and the world are better off without a superpower.  President-elect Obama seems to understand this, but it will take inspired leadership to lead the country into this new, diminished, global role.

There is, first of all, both a descriptive (factual) and prescriptive (value judgment) aspect to this question. Will the U.S. regain its superpower status? And should it do so? I believe the answer is negative to both questions, but the reasoning behind them are similar.

Some scholars have argued that the world needs a powerful and stabilizing force, and that the United States is the only country in a position to play this role. The British historian Niall Ferguson has made this case in his book Colossus, as has the U.S. political scientist Michael Mandelbaum in The Case for Goliath. And through much of history, there has been a big single power that has played this role in great swaths of the planet--Rome, Britain, Spain, the Ottomans, etc. All of those empires are now gone.

The 21st century world is different in several important respects. First, power and influence are more diffuse. There are numerous "rising powers"--China, India, Brazil, Iran, Russia, South Africa--and they are spread all over the globe. None of them want or need a super powerful country encroaching on their turf, or telling them how to behave.

Second, the world is more interdependent, particularly in economic terms--"flat" in Thomas Friedman's evocative phrase. Prosperity and security are being built on trade, cooperation and compromise. Some countries are bigger and wealthier than others and will naturally play a more substantial role in this globalized community. A "superpower"--economic or military--distorts and destabilizes such a system.

Third, the most important issues facing the globe now require cooperation, consultation, compromise and diplomacy rather than brute strength or intimidation. Global warming, environmental deterioration, epidemics, famine, and drought are the most pressing threats to humanity. All of them require the participation of all states, regardless of their wealth, power and ideology. A superpower, with its tendency to unilateralism and arrogance, can only hinder such cooperation.

For all of these reasons, the U.S. will not, and should not, play the dominant and directing global role that it did through most of the 20th Century.

In addition to these global factors are domestic U.S. ones. In the American Century, the U.S. had the world's biggest economy, its richest citizens, the best schools, the finest system of medical care, and the most successful democracy. It can no longer make such claims, both because of our own decline in the past two decades, and because other countries have been catching up. Most developed countries now surpass the U.S. in the quality of life, health care delivery, and education, and have much lower levels of poverty, inequality and violence. The vaunted U.S. economy (which for so long was a house of cards built on multiple levels of debt) has now begun an inevitable decline. Until the encouraging results of last week's election, even the U.S. political system was rickety, with low levels of voting and participation, very unequal representation, erosion of fundamental rights, and questionable electoral outcomes.

So whereas in the 20th Century, the U.S. carried global influence because of its own domestic model of success (in addition to its military strength), it can no longer make those claims of exceptionalism. The rest of the world has caught up.

The U.S. has already lost the status of sole superpower. Even if we wanted it, other countries don't recognize or accept it. And both the U.S. and the rest of the world will be better off if we don't regain it.

One of the Sarah-bashing allegations coming out of the McCain camp is that she thought Africa was a country instead of a continent. The MSNBC pundits - esp. Matthews - have been scoffing at that. They keep asking how could any adult, college-educated person in the U.S., the governor of a state, not know that Africa is a continent.

Frankly, I didn't have any trouble believing it. American high schools aren't known for producing well-rounded individuals and many colleges don't have geography, history, politics or sociology requirements for graduation. With the xenophobia and racism that runs rampant in this country - esp. among right-wing Republicans - as well as the Republican penchant for anti-intellectualism - is it really a shock that a governor from a low-population, conservative, and "maverick" state like Alaska would be so ignorant?

And now, Palin has inadvertently confirmed her own gaffe:

If there are allegations based on questions or comments I made in debate prep about Nafta -- about the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there -- then those were taken out of context.

The continent vs. the country? So she thinks there is a country called Africa? At the very least, she's confirmed she said something that could be construed that way.

And why would Africa come up in debate preparation about NAFTA? Maybe because she didn't know which countries are part of NAFTA? That was another allegation coming from McCain's camp.

During the same spontaneous press conference, Palin denied the RNC had sent anyone up to Alaska to repossess her $150,000+ wardrobe. But she confirmed there were, in fact, RNC representatives doing an inventory of her wardrobe. Hmm.

Remember, this is the same chick who, the day after the Alaska legislature's Troopergate report came out, saying she had done things that were illegal and unethical and enumerating those things, she told the press she was glad the report said she'd done nothing illegal or unethical.

I guess nothing's true until Sarah says it's true.

Girlfriend needs to shut up. Maybe she's never heard of this advice, sometimes attributed to Lincoln:

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

I've been feeling sorry for her because I think she's being scapegoated. She is not the reason McCain lost. McCain choosing her might be one reason he lost but it's not the only one, and she's not the one who chose her.

But now I'm thinking - karma's a bitch.  After all the attacks she made on Obama, she's got it coming.

Next time someone asks her if she wants to run for national office, maybe she should blink.

(cross-posted on my site)

Shapiro has an "editorial" today in the WSJ that lambasts "disgraceful" treatment of President Bush and attributes it to his BIPARTISANSHIP! Here's the money quote:

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

Really? I have these vague memories of Bush claiming a mandate and going on to spend the next year trying to radically privatize Social Security. Rove was crowing about the permanent Republican majority, and Iraq quickly spun completely out of control.

Shapiro goes on to repeat the tired right-wing "Bush-as-Truman" cliche that has been circulating in inverse proportion to the president's approval ratings.

Apparently mere lip-service to bipartisanship is enough for the WSJ to be able to claim that Bush is the great uniter of the 21st century. In the reality-based universe, however, the man has been nothing less than the most single-mindedly radical president we have ever had the misfortune of placing in our nation's highest office.

Full text can be accessed here.

Voting out congressional incumbents failed this year, showing the anti-incumbency movement to be a clear letdown.  For some years many groups and their websites have been advocating voting out congressional incumbents as an effective means to reform government and make it work better.  Two of the better ones are Vote Out Incumbents Democracy and Tenure Corrupts.

 

Read more »

One final electoral vote from Nebraska has made it 365 for Obama!  What a sweet number - one EV for every day of the year!

I kind of hate advertising. And I especially hate the role of advertising in politics. Not because advertising is full of cheap lies that degrade even our best candidates. (Though it is, and does.) No, the far worse problem with advertising is that it occurs mostly on TV. 

Read more »

I don't know about you, but every since the election everything in my life, then, before, and beyond, has been forever changed. So, because of that, whenever I reference the past or the future from this point on it will always be "Before Obama (B.O.)" or "After Obama (A.O.)". That's the time frame I live in now. Welcome.

http://multimedia.wbz.com/m/audio/21392350/democratic-radio-adddress-11-08-08.htm

Se. Reid is the embodiment of why the democratic party gets labled weak and spineless. Had Liberman been a republican, judgement day would have been here and passed. Imagine after 2004 election, how a Rove, Delay and Lott would have dealt witha comparable republican. There is no negotiations. 60 was and is a hollow number anyway. Remove him from ALL senate leadership and commitee chairs immediately. Dispicable doesn't quite capture what he did. Conn. has to be pissed that they sent this jackass back to the hill. But this entire episode illustrates the Dems weakness for confrontation. What happens if another dem goes off the reservation. Send a signal to all witnessing that this behavior will not be tolerated. If he wants to vote with the dems on issues so be it. If he doesn't then he has Conn. to answer to in 2012. What a damn joke. Whose feelings is Reid trying to spare? Give me a break throw the bum out. NOW! This is how the Right frames the debate against the Left. Too weak to deal with their own party members, tthen too weak to defend the country. Retribution must be swift and complete. Show some spine Mr. Reid.

It has been a long road since the country veered off the constitutional course in the election of 2000 by not counting all the votes. Since that time we have seen and been part of what historians might call the most un-American time in our proud republic. When the founding fathers fought for freedom and declared their independence from tyranny there was a battle cry raised from the army of General George Washington. It was "A call to heaven". Their call was answered, their fight was won, and this unlikeliest of places united under the banner of freedom was born. This brave new world for the first time ever, said that all people are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  

 

Our United States have grown up a lot since then, but at our core all of us still hold those truths to be self evident. We do come from different backgrounds, with different stories, and different thoughts of what is to protect and grow our fantastic democracy. That's ok though. We can even disagree on very important issues and how to handle them, but what this election showed was that when the American democratic process involves all of us (about 137 million voted) we are a most powerful force. The world was watching with bated breath hoping that we could lift ourselves up and be the beacon of light again.

On one historic Tuesday we showed what democracy is all about. It doesn't matter who you voted for or if your person or proposition lost, what matters is that you participated.

 

You are America; You are why we are free.

 

I know this stuff might sound corny to some of you, but on election night I was working the phones in a get out the vote effort for my candidate PRESIDENT ELECT BARACK OBAMA at a local bar and restaurant in Venice, CA. named Danny's Deli. After we were done a few of us stayed to watch the returns. Venice is a pretty big spot for tourists and after a while some folks started joining us to watch history. I soon realized that a few of these people we not from around here, we had Germans, Canadians, and a girl from Scotland. They all were holding their breath along with us while we were waiting for the results. We heard stories about how so many people in their home countries were watching every move that this campaign made. All of them said how important this was to them, how important America is to them. We Americans are the leaders in the world as my new friend from Canada said.

 

It was still early, a few states for McCain, a few for Obama, nothing concrete yet. Then they called Pennsylvania for Barack, This was a big one, and I told that to my new international election night buddies. The excitement was building and the momentum we starting to go our way, then Ohio. I knew that this could be it but I didn't say, you never know and of course there was still Florida. We were talking about how the world wanted Obama, how my new friends have been disappointed and scared by Bush. They thought, as did %52 of Americans did, that McCain was going to be just like Bush. And then just like that they called it "We can now project that Barack Obama has won and will be the next president of the United States".

 

We were all cheering jumping up and down giving each other big hugs, what a long and hard fight, what a moment, what history. My fellow phone bankers were crying my beautiful wife was so happy she couldn't stop smiling, crying, and clapping for joy. I was still a little stunned. Did this just happen, did we do this, did America just elect the first Professor to be President of the United States? OK I wasn't actually thinking about his professorship, but hopefully in a time not to long in our future, we will only be thinking about who someone is rather then what they look like.    

 

First McCain came out to give his speech, and I turned to my wife and said that John McCain, the old McCain, can really help our country come back together, I hope he does. My Canadian friend disappeared for a minute and then came back with champagne for all of us. He turned to me and said thank you for saving the world. Saving the world, that's what people thought was at stake here. Did I just save the world? No I just made some phone calls to remind Americans that the world was in our hands. I was just playing my part, a small one, in this dramatic American story. You all played one too, that's the point of this post, you and I and all of us played a part, in this new beginning.

 

Then it was time for PRESIDENT ELECT BARACK OBAMA to take the stage. He was pitch perfect as usual. I was floored, but turning around to look at this new mix of people gathering around the TV to watch a profound moment in history, I noticed something, they were crying, all of them. I knew the folks who were working for Obama would be emotional, but there was not a dry eye in the house. From Scotland, to Germany, to Canada, to Venice Beach CA, his presence, his message of hope, and his strength made a believer of me and of all of them as well.

 

His message in victory came with the humility of knowing that what lies ahead is no easy task and that it will take all of us, our fellow Americans, and our friends around the world. I think we are ready for the challenge, I think we have been for a long time now but have been waiting for someone to lead. We now have a leader.So it is again time to gather our strength and like the great founders of this country do the hard work, even when we disagree in order to form a more perfect union.

 

When I got home later that night I was standing outside and looking at the stars, I held my wife real close and she whispered we did it! And just then a brisk wind started blowing, I turned to her and said a line from a Led Zeppelin song, in the light - "well the winds of change will blow around you but you are never alone."  

 

Thank you, my friends, fellow Americans, and citizens around the world. On a transformational Tuesday night in November WE THE PEOPLE SAID YES WE CAN!

 

I'll end with this; just think of the Great Ray Charles singing one of my favorite songs about the great country I'm so very proud to call home.

America, America,

God shed his grace on thee,

And crown thy good, with brother hood,

From sea to shining sea.

Many of us live in a country formed by revolution against the past, by dreamers who sought to form "a more perfect union" to render the government an instrument of the people, and not of the despots or oppressors of Europe or even of England.

As Edward R. Murrow reminded us at one of the critical points in our history when we seemed to forget that:

If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who dared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.....We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom where ever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

or, put more simply at another critical point in our history, by one of our greatest presidents:

The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself

Read more »

I was opposed to Proposition 8, and voted against it.  In my opinion any reasonable reading of the equal protection clause of the US constitution prohibits government from granting more rights to some citizens and fewer to others.  That means, if government offers any "rights" to married couples, everyone has to have the opportunity to marry whom ever they wish.  And, government certainly does offer more rights to married couples, from income tax filing to inheritance rights to adoption rights.

But, I am bothered by the attempts to overturn the decision made by California voters to define marriage as being limited to one man-one woman partnerships.  Our voters have every right to do what they did last Tuesday, unless doing that was a violation of either the state constitution or the US constitution.  It can't be a violation of the state constitution since it was an amendment to the state constitution, so the only way that what the voters did was legally wrong was if it violated the US constitution.  And, that decision has to be made by the courts.

There are currently waves of public demonstrations against Proposition 8.  The only effect these demonstrations can have is to demonstrate to the courts that the public believes that the US constitution prohibits Proposition 8 from ever becoming law.  But, why would the courts believe that even a 100,000 person demonstration was meaningful when the people voted decisively that Proposition 8 become law?  So, other than being an outlet for the rage of those who support gay marriage, the demonstrations seem pointless.

Far better to challenge proposition 8 in the court, and this is already underway.  The courts will know where the people stand - against gay marriage - but will have to decide whether the US constitution trumps the will of the people.  It does, of course, but courts are known to ignore simple facts like that, especially right wing courts such as we are now cursed with.

I am not planning to take part in any of the many demonstrations against proposition 8.  I hope this explains why.

I have made a series of absolutely astonishing discoveries since Tuesday.

Here's one.  Turns out, I am a party to a contractual relationship whereby people expect me to do work, work for them, in exchange for the money they give me.  It appears that I have a great deal of this work to do in this thing, this "job" as I am told it is called, if I am to keep drawing that pay.  These people are not, it develops, the Obama campaign, but, rather are private parties who expect me to do work related to their own narrow pecuniary interests. 

Here's another.  It further appears that I have been a party to this so-called "job" thing for quite some time now, including the last two years.  Further investigation has revealed that, somehow, by some strange autonomic process that did not actually engage my conscious attention, I have actually a done a great deal of this work over the last two years.  This was most fortunate.  It is now my understanding that failure to do this work would have resulted in cessation of the payments I've been getting from them as I pursued my actual vocation of frantically checking polls and news and fundraising figures, writing comments and blog posts at TPM, and doing volunteer work for the campaign. 

Yet another unexpected discovery: schadenfreude is tricky stuff.  Wednesday night, I dropped by "hillaryis44.org," a place that has long since ceased even pretending not to be a Republican front, to do a little private gloating.  Instead, after I read the latest long crazy rant from "the Administrator," as they call him, I dove into the comments and found myself feeling only pity.  I rebuked myself for the low and unworthy desire that had motivated the trip, turned off the computer and went to bed. 

The next day, however, I drove to a high end deli I favor for a lunch date and, on the way inside, had to pass between two tables-full of what I've come to call "the tennis biddies."  These are the aging wives of the handful of rich old white guys who, not so long ago, used to run this town like it was their private little game of Sim City.  I instinctively disliked this class of women even before I'd lived here long enough to figure out who they were. These are women who've lived out lives of perfectly useless country club Republican indolence, playing tennis, organizing stultifying parties, participating in so-called charities that do no actual good other than postponing cocktail hour.  Week after week, they come to this busy restaurant during the lunch hour in their horrifically expensive, repulsively skimpy tennis outfits and blather endlessly away about nothing long after their meals are finished, haughtily ignoring the people with actual jobs (did I mention it turns out I have one?) walking around with their trays of food and looking in vain for an empty table.  This day, however, there was little blathering.  Instead, they looked, to a woman,  simultaneously stunned, mortified and utterly despondent.  Their whole world had been turned upside down.  Their fear of imminent Islamofacist pillage and rapine and socialist expropriation was palpable.  It was thoroughly delightful to behold. 

And finally, another, less morally suspect, discovery I made a few minutes earlier, that same day.  Since last February, I've have been telling everyone I know, and via the Internet, many people I do not know, that this country is not what they think it is.  When people have said that the Democrats were dead and/or that the country still wasn't ready for a black president, I've been the guy insisting that changing demographics, the slow decay of ideological racism among whites into a soft prejudice that merely creates a rebuttable presumption against blacks made it possible.  For two years, I've been telling disbelieving friends and relatives that there was a steadily rising disaffection with all things Republican that, unnoticed by our somnolent media, began about fifteen minutes after George W. Bush was sworn in for his second term and that that disaffection would sweep the Democrats back into power by huge margins.  I've been strident about it at times, though I've tried to stay on the good side of "shrill."   

Not tooting my own horn or bragging about my presience, because, this week, I've, most ironically, discovered the difference between belief and hope.  Turns out, all these things I believed, were merely hope.  I know this because on Thursday afternoon, the first full day after I recovered from Tuesday, I was driving to the aforementioned lunch date and heard these words on the radio:

"From National Public Radio, this is Lakshmi Singh.  President-Elect Obama . . ."

I didn't hear the rest.  My throat suddenly closed up and my vision fogged over.  To prevent an accident, I had to hastily pull into a nearby bank parking lot where, for about thirty seconds, I did that choking-weeping thing that guys do in lieu of actually crying.  Turns out, a part of me didn't really believe any of that stuff.  Instead, I was just hoping it was true. Having your beliefs proven brings quiet satisfaction. Only hope fulfilled can make you cry. 

On the front, Josh reports that Norm Coleman is asserting "voter fraud" in Minnesota. That's not strictly true since Coleman isn't alleging that individuals voted more than once or misrepresented themselves at the polls.  Coleman is saying that there is something strange about finding 100 votes that all go for Franken. But setting that aside for a second, everyone should know that "voter fraud" is basically meaningless in Minnesota because they have election day registration.  While there is a registration deadline, anyone who does not submit a registration application by the deadline can show up at their precinct on election day and vote after providing some ID that proves their residence in the precinct, or after another voter vouches for their residence in the precinct.  It's kind of a neat, if slightly nutty, system for running elections.  You can learn more at the Secretary of State's website.

So, if you hear anything about ACORN or actual claims of voter fraud coming out of this race, tell those people to stick it.

In the United States, there is a powerful compulsion to shoehorn warmaking into the ranks of admirable activities conducted by good people with fine minds. General Petraeus fulfills an important need, especially for the responsible-liberal quadrant of the commentariat and the incoming Obama administration which, I imagine, will be staffed by Ivy League intellectuals and not be chock-a-block with blood and thunder military types.

For the United States to put up with occupations and COIN/pacification operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that may go on for more than a decade, the public needs to believe that the occupation is some kind of combination of FDR's New Deal and the superhero Justice League, using American know-how and values to continually improve the economic and security well-being of the peoples in our care.

However, in real life, occupation and counter-insurgency are a nasty, degrading, and bloody business. Commanders in a hostile land far from home, intent on protecting their own forces, aren't always using a surgical scalpel to extract the tumor of insurgency. Sometimes the meat axe is swung indiscriminately, slaughtering patient and bystanders alike. China Matters

----------------------------

AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there. I want to thank you very much for being with us. Last question, though: do you think the movements that elected Obama can, without the Obama machine, remarkable online and on-the-ground organizing, what, ten million email list--we were getting texts and emails every couple of hours--can reconstitute itself without that? Because now that will be the state. How do people show their--express their positions if they differ from the state?

MAHMOOD MAMDANI: Has the movement been absorbed into the state? Look, there's a remarkable difference between the youth movement of the '60s, which mainly organized outside the system, and the youth movement which has brought Obama to power, because this movement has organized within the system to reform the system. Obama keeps on saying that this movement must not go away, that change hasn't come, that this is the beginning of change. Now, will the candidate be able to tame the movement, or will the movement be able to stamp itself to some extent in the coming days? Democracy Now

------------------------------------

Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a "redistributor," but America voted for him anyway. That's a real mandate. Paul Krugman - NYT

---------------------------------

Mr Obama's appointment of Rahm Emanuel, a long-time aide to Bill Clinton, to be his White House chief of staff is a savvy choice that will tick a lot of people off. Mr Emanuel will be not only a force multiplier for a Democratic majority that has grown by 19 seats, but also - and more importantly - a brake on that majority. Christopher Caldwell - Financial Times

----------------------------------------------

Read more »

Steve Benen suggests that Joe Lieberman's motive for begging to keep his chairmanship could be somewhat sinister:

[T]ake a moment to consider what the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs actually does: it's the committee principally responsible for oversight of the executive branch. It's an accountability committee, charged with investigating the conduct of the White House and the president's administration.

As chairman of this committee for the last two years, Lieberman decided not to pursue any accusations of wrongdoing against the Bush administration. Lieberman's House counterpart -- Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee -- was a vigilant watchdog, holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching multiple investigations. Lieberman preferred to let his committee do no real work at all. It was arguably the most pathetic display of this Congress.

And yet, now Lieberman acts as if keeping this chairmanship is the single most important part of his public life. Why would he be so desperate to keep the gavel of a committee he hasn't used? I'll let you in on a secret: he wants to start using the power of this committee against Obama.

But Ezra Klein takes a slightly different view in response:

I don't think that's quite right. Rather, Lieberman wants to keep his committee as a hedge against retribution. So long as he controls Governmental Affairs, he's not the sort of guy Democrats want on a warpath against them. Elsewhere, they can take him seriously, or screw him over, largely as they please, which most would probably find a preferable alternative.

(via Sullivan)

I can only imagine the internal fortitude necessary to rationalize the cognitive dissonance when God abandons your cause as he clearly did for the rightwing evangelical crowd this cycle.  Suppose you've spent the better part of the last election cycle cashing in all your chips with God in a vainglorious attempt at having him influence the 2008 elections on your behalf.  What must those people be thinking right now?  I put together my first poll, in an attempt to harvest the collective intelligence of a broader audience and see if we could come up with a consensus.  It's title is the same as the title of this post.  The poll is located here.

Enjoy.

Barack Obama made his first radio address as President Elect on Saturday. Stressing the urgency of shoring up our economy as he did during Friday's press conference, Obama stated, "We must act swifty."

Politico has the full transcript.

There are surely at least a couple of Americans out there who abominate, aghast with revulsion, the prospect of the spawn of interracial marriage as their president. As Barack Obama said in his first presser, he's a mutt, a mix, not hypo-allergenic and not safe for those with genetic disposition to reject, revile, denounce and despise the impure.

Most appropriately, our first non-pink president is not just a minority member of the body politic, but a cross, not just hyphenated but actually dual-nationality. He represents not just the ascension of the formerly lowly, but the apotheosis of the Unum out of our Pluribus. He is a Citizen of the World that happened to live in Chicago.

Read more »

In 1991 a book called "The End of Realignment?" was published.  In it five essays by five authors argued over whether realignment theory was useful in understanding the development of American politics. The question mark at the end of the title was added only after one of the contributors, Walter Dean Burnham, requested it. Realignment theory captivated students of American politics for three decades, from 1955, when V. O. Key, Jr. first published an essay about it. The essence of the theory is that some elections are more important than others. These elections had changed the partisan coalitions that supported the two major political parties. These shifts, once made, were fairly durable, until the next critical election. Key had identified five such elections: Jefferson in 1800, Jackson in 1828, Lincoln in 1860, McKinley in 1896, and FDR in 1932. They were characterized by a shift in voting preferences. One party captured control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, and held them all for at least ten years.

At first realignment theory seemed to explain much about American politics. It was an exciting pattern: these upheavals occurred almost like clockwork: once every 28 to 36 years or so. Why did the pattern hold? The political system was a relic of the 18^th century: it was designed to make change difficult. Once a coalition got in power, it would tend to stay there. But the American society was remarkably vibrant, and its economic advancement was astonishing. Over time, the issues that caused one election were solved or faded. New issues arose, and new generations of Americans had different concerns in their ever-evolving economic and social environment. The entrenched political powers resisted such change, but events would overtake them. Finally, a crisis of some sort would lead to a change in partisan alignments with the major parties.

This pattern seemed to work for American political history up to the 1960's. If the pattern followed, then the nation was due for a major realignment in the late 1960's or early 1970's.

This realignment never happened; or if it did, it looked different than the others. Because the 1960's saw the beginnings of a shift of Southern Conservatives from the Democratic Party to the Republicans. But this shift did not occur in one election; it was not truly complete until the late 1980's at the earliest. The election of Nixon heralded not only this Southern strategy by the Republicans, but also an era of divided government. From 1969 until 2001, the only years of unified party government were from 1977-81 (the Carter years), and from 1993-95 (first two years of Clinton). Students of realignment theory became discouraged as Reagan became elected in 1980, but without Republicans capturing the House of Representatives (although note that there were still plenty of Southern Conservative Democrats who today would run as Republicans). Some thought that 1994 was a realigning election, as Republicans triumphed wildly in an off-year (non-presidential year) election. But with Clinton gaining re-election in 1996, the pattern of electoral realignment seemed to be dead. Instead it looked like gradual change--one election was not necessarily more important that another.

In the meantime, the media had picked up on the term realignment, but did not use it in way that academic scholars did. The term had lost its theoretical significance.

The election of Barack Obama leads me to question whether or not realignment still lives. Back in that 1991 book, Burnham claimed that 1968 was indeed a realigning election, but that it was a different type of realignment. Each critical election was about a different thing. 1832 was about widening the franchise and representing the common man. 1860 was about slavery in the territories. 1896 was about which would prevail: democracy or capitalism. 1932 was about solving the Great Depression. Burnham claimed that 1968 was about an increase in distrust in government, and cited a study that showed this disaffection.

Most (but not all) critical elections were associated with a crisis. 1860 reflected a growing divide over free labor in the North, and slave labor in the South, with a conflict over whether one would prevail in the Western territories. 1896 occurred during one of the worst depressions in history. The Great Depression was the crisis leading to 1932.

That brings us to 1968, one of the most tumultuous years in American history. The Vietnam was had become a morass, leading Lyndon Johnson to decline to seek reelection. Americans felt they could not trust their president. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. So was Bobby Kennedy. There were riots in the streets, riots outside the Democratic National Convention, and an immense split over race issues within the Democratic Party. The various crises led to an increase in cynicism, and a decrease in trust in the government.

The decline in trust in government as a major theme pervaded the Reagan era. After all, Reagan claimed that "government is not the solution, government is the problem." A belief in the sanctity of unregulated markets was a hallmark of this ideology, run rampant in political statements during the Gingrich/Bush era, even if actions by Republicans in power did not reflect consistency with this ideology.

If you think 1968 was indeed a realigning election, the election of Barack Obama comes right on schedule to vindicate realignment theory. It has been forty years. And if this is the case, we may be on the verge of a Democratic era, just as we have been in an era more or less dominated by a conservative ideology.

Of course we cannot yet know if this will be the case; all we can say now is that it is possible. We can examine the changes in the coalition basis of the Democratic party. For example, we can note the generational change in young voters and Latinos that shifted significantly to the Democrats. We can also examine ideology. Obama represents, I suspect, a new pragmatism towards economic and social issues. Having taught at the home of Milton Friedman, he is versed in both the virtues of the market place, and also where and when markets fail. He is steeped in American Constitutional history. He thus will have an opportunity to reconstruct important aspects of American politics, understanding all the way what he is doing.

All of this is to say, that the organizational imperatives of the Obama campaign are potentially epoch-making. It is a new kind of party organization that he has built, and that he I am sure intends to maintain. It is a political juggernaut on his personality, that he will likely try to institutionalize, so that it lasts. The work of people who create, and who read TPM are part of this institutionalization. It is a new way of getting informed, of getting active, of organizing and supporting each other. In the grand scope of American party politics, this is an exciting thing to observe and at the same time to take part in.

Realignment may live.  And we are all part of it.

Just a follow-up to my earlier post about the opportunity inherent in the commentariat's "center-right" label for the country and even the Obama campaign.

If the country and Obama are in the "center" (disregard for the moment if you think we are slightly right or left of that center), then where does that leave the Republicans in the wake of such a crushing election defeat?  It leaves them right where we want them (thanks, McCain!), cornered with an ever-dwindling population of aging reactionaries.  Obama should continue the successful effort of his campaign to claim the solid center and label his policies as such.  The Republicans can't very well move to the left of him, after all.  If they did, their remaining rump of supporters would abandon them.  They are therefore boxed in, left to espouse the very ideas that lost so decisively in this election (and in 2006).

It is going to be a long uphill climb for the Republican party if the best post election show they have to offer is a literal bitch-slapping contest over Sarah Palin.  I have seen the term circular firing squad used many times as a metaphor for this post election finger pointing. 

Perhaps out of a distant loyalty to the thought they once represented something reasonably recognizable as "conservative",  I offer them the following tip:  The conservative America I grew up in believed in a strong separation between Church and State.   I almost hate to point out such obvious stuff to a party that is clearly gone criminal, as I don't want to appear to be aiding and abetting fugitives.  It's just that I used to know and respect a few folks who held positions different than mine who could literately debate them without resorting to worn out logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks.

Palin clearly believes in a Christian theocracy, one where she, as President and Pastor -in Chief, would be able to rightly differentiate between the 'witches' that needed burning and the rapist fetuses that needed protecting.    If she desires to be a real politician when she grows up (press conferences anyone ??) she will have to learn out to play nice with the media and the general electorate, and not just the rubes who lost their fortunes long before this latest market crash by investing in Jim and Tammy Faye Baker's PTL themepark.

It doesn't matter to America that Sarah doesn't have a favorite magazine she's willing to share with us, nor even that she might be clueless on The Bush Doctrine or even the continental status of Africa.  Expensive dresses??  Who the hell are they making them for if a hot VP candidate can't at least 'borrow' them for awhile?  LOL.   All that is meant to distract voters that the one thing that makes Sarah certifiably toxic.

Sarah believes in the rights of the rapist's baby over the rights of the girl being raped.  I don't know if it's twisted serendipity or horrible karmic influence that the results of treating the rapists better than the thirteen year old who was raped recently made headlines, but it's starting to appear that letting any religion (even those of the Sons of Abraham) too close to the levers of public power is something the founders of our country took particular interest in preventing.

Enjoy.

Zell Lieberman has spent the last year running for Repbulican and away from the hopes and dreams of his own party.  The time has come.  Hopefully Senator Reid and the Democrat caucus will give Zell Lieberman the window seat he has earned and so richly deserves.  

Lieberman will then have the opportunity to redeem himself by supporting his own party. 

This may be heretical for a TPM blog but in one sense I think it's probably a good thing the democrats didn't reach a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. It seems to me that checks and balances are necessary safeguards. 

I originally posted this the Tuesday before the election (Oct 29) over at my blog.  It's a bit old now that we know who won, but I figured that TPM readers may be interested in some of the details here as well.  I also think this would be a great project to have other readers with expertise in certain policy areas outline the more detailed transition posts that must be named.

I've been asked what the transition means for Latin America, particularly with an Obama win. The point of this post is not about the policy but about the nuts and bolts of the bureaucracy. The transition has an extra challenge for the Western Hemisphere in that the new appointees will need to hit the ground running in order to prepare for the Summit of the Americas in April 2009.

Read more »

I've been a founder at three VC funded computer companies, and when I look at the deals these bankers are getting from the Treasury, I just have to laugh.

No Silicon Valley VC would give you one million dollars, much less billions of dollars, on the terms that the bankers are getting from the the US Treasury.  It looks like Secretary Paulson is abusing our trust to help his old investment banker friends.

A typical VC deal requires revealing all debts or potential debts to the funders.  The funders get voting share and board seats, for their investment, and the board carefully monitors executive salaries and other major expenses.  The shares issued are *not* non-dilutive, nor non-voting, and usually have additional protections over existing common shares.

If the VCs are recapitalizing a company, the existing shareholders are given relatively little protection, typically keeping 0-10% of their initial share of the company; key employees are given new options, if necessary, to retain them.

This same approach should be taken with these banks.   Before a dime is invested, the Treasury should receive full disclosure of the liabilities on the bank's books, including the details of complex derivative contracts and SIVs, to see if the bank can even be saved.  New funding should then depend on getting bonuses and other badly chosen expenses under control, but if enough individuals refuse to renegotiate their bonuses, Treasury should simply refuse to invest -- the banks assets will no doubt be less expensive to obtain from a bankruptcy court.

Any Treasury funding should come along with *voting and highly dilutive* shares, as well as board seats.  The newly recapitalized banks may have to write down the value of some structured assets, or sell them for nearly nothing to the Treasury, but at least they'll be able to lend again, and once the Treasury has certified that the bank no longer holds toxic derivatives, the banks will be able to go to the capital markets again.  New regulations on both bank size, and  acceptable investment classes should be put in place, to avoid a repeat of this mess.  

Finally, the bank shares owned by the Treasury can be sold on the open market and the government can get out of the banking business again.  Because the Treasury department will be able to certify that the bank is now free of toxic derivatives, the banks' shares will value again, 

I've had enough of Alaska.  I hadn't really thought much about it until recently.  Yeah, watched a little Northern Exposure, which at the time I took to be a dramedy and now realize was more of a documentary.  But otherwise, didn't think much of Alaska.  Cute state. Lots of fun trivia about how big it is. Keeps Texas in its place.

Now, I'm thinking that maybe Alaskan independence isn't such a bad idea.  It's not so much that they foisted this empty pantsuit on the rest of the country in Sarah Palin, who couldn't make it to the second round of "Are You Smarter Than a First Grader".  But I could understand that -- she gives a good speech, and they probably didn't ask her tough questions up there in Alaska like "what newspapers do you read?" or "what's the name of the country that's attached to our eastern border?"

But now it's the Stevens thing.  The guy gets convicted -- trial, evidence, jury of his peers, "do you have a verdict," the whole shebang -- and still he might get elected (though it's looking better).  And they definitely elected this Young guy, whose probably spending more on legal bills to defend his pending legal problems than Sarah is spending on First Dude's suits.   

So I've had enough.  I heard about this Alaskan Independence Party, which First Dude belonged to until recently, and it sounds good to me.  Let them be independent.  They can keep the natural gas, which they're apparently doing anyway.  They can keep the caribou.  Above all, they can keep Sarah, and Stevens, and Donny, and the whole corrupt lot of them. 

So join up!  Let's get them their independence.  President Obama will even invite Alaskan President Palin to the White House for state dinners, where she can mean the real Sark-Kozy, whom I've heard she "just LOVES!".  Join their yahoo group here, and encourage these plucky Alaskans to fly, fly away. 

But joining isn't enough.  Their homepage has a donation page, where you can contribute to this effort to turn Alaska from Red to whatever-other-color-they-want.  So give, give as much as you can.  Give till it hurts. 

As Kos would sort of say, leave it all on the road to nowhere.

 

It is Parents Weekend at Northwestern University in Evanstorn, Illinois, and I am here visiting my son, a freshman, and my daughter, a senior.  My oldest daughter graduated from here last spring so I guess that qualifies this alumnus of that other institution resting high above Cayuga's waters as a member of the Northwestern community.

Last night, my son and I attended what I understand was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's first public appearance since the election.  The audience of approximately 1,200 consisted of students from Northwestern and neighboring colleges and various luminaries of the Chicago scene, including, William Ayers.  We didn't get to stay for the entire event because Reverend Wright arrived late (we were told he was caught in traffic!), and the program began almost an hour and a half after the scheduled start time.  The simple fact is that I flew out to Chicago to see my kids, and not to report on a speaking event.  Still, I  thought that at least some of you would be interested in my observations (particularly if this is going to rekindle another mini media frenzy).

Reverend Wright was invited to speak by a group called For Members Only, a Northwestern black student alliance, after the Reverend had been unceremoniously disinvited last spring to receive an honorary degree from the University in the midst of the media frenzy over some of the choice excerpts from his sermons.  I don't condone what the Reverend said in those snippets by any strech of the imagination, but Reverend Wright, principally through his church and his ministry, has been a pillar of the Chicago inner-city community for decades.  The honorary degree he was to receive was well-deserved and earned the hard way, and frankly I have to say that I am embarassed by the University's decision to deny him the honor that was to be bestowed on him.  It is a university for heaven's sake and it is where we are supposed to embrace diversity of opinion.  Instead, I surmise that the University deferred to angry and wealthy donors who, ironically but in reality, endow the university with much of the funding that is, inter alia, used to provide financial aid to students in need.  I understand the University's decision, but I disagree with it without reservation.

My guess is that if you survey some of the media reports about Reverend Wright's address today, you will read about his pointed jabs at the press and what he and his family and parishoners had been subjected to last spring, and you might also read about Reverend Wright's brief but unambiguous and unqualified praise for and support of Barack Obama.  But the election of Obama and the media frenzy surrounding Wright's bit part in the campaign were really side issues last night.  The focus was on the fact that, at Northwestern and other elite universities across the country, the systemic lack of equal opportunity between blacks and whites in American in 2008 is as plain as day.  Four and one-half percent of my son's freshman class is black, or put another way only 81 of the almost 2000 Northwestern freshman are black.  This represents a little more than a one percent decline from the freshman class of 2007. 

I didn't hear, or candidly maybe I didn't understand, the solutions being proposed by Reverend Wright, and the passionate students and other guests who spoke before him (again we were unable to stay for the entire program, including the question and answer session with Reverend Wright).  Reverend Wright spoke of the simple truth that there are many, many black students across the country who meet the academic qualifications required to attend Northwestern, but he also pointed out that most of those students come from families that could never afford the 50,000 dollar-plus annual cost of matriculating there.  I am by no means a rich man (honestly), I will owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in college loans after my kids graduate, but I have a good job and a wife who accepts the  financial responsibility I have to the kids from my first marriage, and somehow we will manage during the decade-plus that it will take to pay off the debts I have incurred.  The same cannot be said for too many African American families whose children are well-qualified but simply do not have the financial means to attend institutions like Northwestern. To be sure, as I have written here time and again, the nagging inequality of opportunity between black and white Americans will not disappear simply because we made history and elected our first African American president this week. 

Reverend Wright also spoke at length about the need to move away from teaching black kids about black history and culture through the prism of the standard European-American model of what constitutes "our" history and "our" culture.  His historical overview of black education in America was measured and riveting at the same time.  Reverend Wright spoke with a mix of eloquence and humor, with no hint of bitterness or anger, and his presenstation confirmed to me, and more importantly from my perspective, to my son, that he is a brilliant scholar who is nothing like the man caricatured by the media during the presidential campaign.

Finally, like most of you, I am a political junkie, and I could not help thinking about the actions President-Elect Obama took last spring to disassociate himself from Reverend Wright.  I believed back then when I was a loyal supporter of Senator Clinton and I am even more convinced now, that President-Elect Obama threw Reverend Wright under the bus because he had to, because for political reasons he had no other choice   It is just silly to pretend that Senator Obama "didn't know" after twenty years about the things Reverend Wright said from the pulpit.  I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.  That said, I just don't blame Obama for what he did because the simple fact is that he had to abandon Reverend Wright if he was going to be elected president.  And that, I submit, is a real tragedy; the young senator from Illinois, the man who rekindled hope in millions of Americans around the country, was forced to conform with those "white" norms Reverend Wright spoke about last night, just as Jackie Robinson in another less critical arena and in another era had to endure the brutality of overt racism in order to play on the white folks' field of play.

I think Reverend Wright knew perfectly well what his parishoner had to do last spring if he was going to break one more previously inpenetrable racial barrier and become president.  And I think, in the end, that's why Reverend Wright did what he did before all those masters of the universe at the National Press Club.  Reverend Wright took one for the team and gave the pundits the red meat they craved, and  that is one measure of a man this humble blogger takes very seriously.  I probably couldn't sit through some of Reverend Wright's sermons and I particularly detest what he said about 9/11.  That's just not my thing and I really have no interest in debating the Reverend or anyone else about that way of thinking.  But, still, Reverend Wright has earned my respect, and he gave me a personal gift last night, and he did so by speaking to my son and the other students in the audience, and by causing them to think a little bit outside of the box and through the eyes of their less fortunate American brothers and sisters.  And isn't that, as distinguished from doing things like politicizing the honorary degree process, supposed to be what a university is all about? 

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was disappointed when the fifth district (which includes Charlottesville) was prematurally called for Goode Tuesday night, hopeful when I saw the margin narrow to less than 100 votes, and then cautiously optimistic when I heard that Periello was up by 31 votes. I'm recklessly optimistic now that I've found out he's leading by 648 votes. (CNN has it at 646.) No, Goode hasn't conceded yet, and there probably will be a recount, but I think this House seat is belatedly going our way as well.

Update: The VA state board of elections has it at 745. Periello has declared victory, and Goode has declared irregularities. Don't expect Goode to concede any time soon, and with the margin being only 0.24% (assuming the 745 number will be official), if Goode asks for a recount (they're never automatic in Virginia), he wouldn't have to pay for it.

I live in Pennsylvania, not far from the Delaware line. The University of Delaware in Newark (pronounced New-Ark) isn't far from here and I've had several occasions to attend events at or pass through the campus. I've heard its a pretty good state school, but its an unremarkable place in a small town.

Obviously the Obama transition team isn't taking advice from some random blogger on TPM, but if they did, I'd like to raise my one cabinet recommendation: General Wesley Clark would make a brilliant choice for Secretary of State.

Tom Foreman: Let me start off by asking you a basic question: For all of the concerns about Georgia, for all of the saber-rattling right now - you've been there and you've done that - how worried should we be about the relations between the U.S. and Russia right now?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think we should be very concerned and it's not just the U.S. and Russia. This is really about NATO. It's about the U.S. leadership role in Europe and how European countries respond to the United States. So, we need to be focusing on not just a U.S. - Russia bilateral relationship, but we need to be focusing on Transatlantic unity in- and using that Transatlantic unity to shape the behavior of Russia. That's one of the areas in which I think the administration has frankly not been as effective in the last seven years as it could've been, because there's been a lot of emphasis on U.S. unilateral relations with Russia and elsewhere and not enough emphasis on Transatlantic unity.

I've been searching for a CD or original vinyl copy of "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" for many, many years.  I have the '82 version.  I don't want Donny Osmond.  I once had the first one - circa 1977.  It's that one I've been been dreaming of since the original albulm was ruined beyond the ability to recognize.  It was my sister's and I stole it so as to listen for hours on end at the age of fifteen.  No version since has even come close.

I've looked everywhere.  I'm really starting to think I made the whole thing up in a dream.  Yet, I know it was recorded.  I spent too much time imprinting it upon my mind to doubt that now.  It's still in there, I just need so badly for my heart to hear it again.

Will you take a moment to help?  I'm lost on my own, so am turning to my friends.  I truly hope you don't mind - but if you do, that's okay, too.  After all, these words will drop away soon enough. 

Much appreciation for any and all effort on my behalf - thanks.

 

This daily post is a clearinghouse for links to posts that either flew by too fast, didn't get the attention they deserved, or are so good they need to be up even longer...

ANYONE can link a post here, and we encourage you to do so. The post is only as good as its links. If you do add a link, please describe it briefly and tell us why it deserves another look.

As long as the archives are messed up, this is the only way to preserve good posts!

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take the time to rec this post, even if you don't read any of the links or add anything. It only works if it makes it to READER REC everyday. If it barely makes it, it gets bounced off and good posts are lost.

We all know what's kept McCain going throughout his life:

1. Personal ambition
2. Love of beautiful women
   

Now, he told us that personal ambition was why he ran in 2000.

He might have decided to run in 2008 for the same reason, initially, but by the time he had to pick his running mate he realized a couple of things:

1. He was old and tired.
   
2. His campaign had been screwed up (he let it be screwed up in the name of his ambition).
3. The Republicans screwed up so badly that he was probably not going to win, no matter what he did.

It all appeared that his #1 motive just wasn't going to be fulfilled, so his #2 motive kicked in... Cindy obviously wasn't getting any younger and another wife switch would have been a bad idea this late in the game. But he should be allowed to have just a little more fun before he retires and/or dies. The country owes him at least that much. So he picked Palin.

I thought about this long ago, even before the actual Palin pick, but now there's video proof: watch it, it's hilarious.

Hi there, come on in.  May I get you something?  What was that?  Oh!  You're too funny sometimes.  I'm sure I can find a corkscrew for that fine gift of yours, follow me to the kitchen.  Wait - you are sharing?  Okay, let's go.  Hey guys!  We'll be right back ... throw on some tunes if you want munchies.  Whoa!  That one almost landed.  Now look, people, if I'm going to brave the frig without a flame thrower the least you can do is to show some respect.  Ouch!! 

I think we're safe in here - but you might want to watch the door.  Anyway, how are you?  Is your family doing well?  I can't hear you ... is that the Dead?  Hold on a second.  YO!  Who decided we're all hard of hearing?  Honestly, I can't leave you children alone for a minute.  Do I have to come in there?  All right, just so you're aware that I can still rule the planet while on my knees under a pile of pillows hurled at me.  Such an unappreciative bunch you are.

I give up!  Know what?  You're right.  Let's party!!  Crank up those speakers and dance 'til you drop.  If the frig doesn't eat me alive I'll join you shortly.  Oh!  It's quiet, we can't have that.  What's next?   

 

I found this map, which has been making the rounds, rather striking. It shows where the country shifted more republican relative to 2004:

http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/28416/map2.jpg

Here's why I find it striking. Compare that map with this one:

http://i35.tinypic.com/1o6d5f.jpg
(original source: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/jan/05_0055.htm)

The second map depicts what those familiar with the South often refer to as the "black belt", which is (unsurprisingly) bluer in the first map. But then what the red-shaded areas on the first map seem to depict is what might be called the southern "white belt".

This stands in rather stark contrast to other mostly rural, mostly white areas of the country such as North Dakota or Indiana. The latter, if you don't know this already, has a history of being a northern stronghold of the KKK. Obviously, not so much anymore. Elsewhere, however, Obama was decidedly not regarded as a viable candidate.

 

Bill Mauldin's Famous JFK Assassination Cartoon - 1963

Obama quickly and rightly corrected his indelicate seance reference to the elderly and ailing Nancy Reagan - See the following as reported in the Washington Post. I think it is important that he immediately recognized his mistake and moved quickly to correct it - humor at the expense of a former First Lady wasn't very presidential. 

Obama Calls Nancy Reagan

By Shailagh Murray
CHICAGO -- President-elect Barack Obama made one notable slip during his first post-election news conference: his crack about the ailing Nancy Reagan's reported consultations with an astrologer. He quickly sought to remedy it.

"In terms of speaking to former presidents, I've spoken to all of them that are living," Obama had said in answer to a question. "Obviously, President Clinton -- I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances."

"President-elect Barack Obama called Nancy Reagan today to apologize for the careless and off-handed remark he made during today's press conference," transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter announced. "The President-elect expressed his admiration and affection for Mrs. Reagan that so many Americans share and they had a warm conversation."

Read more »

Greetings, fellow blogmates,

      I received an email from impeachment guru David Swanson today, and have info to pass on.  On November 19, National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance is planning a protest at the U.S. Justice Department. Its members are willing to risk going to jail to urge the indictment of Bush and Cheney for war crimes.  David is appealing to all of us to contact the Justice Department to urge Attorney General Mukasey to meet with the NCRC.

 

Actionist reminder: November 10: phone the DOJ at 202-514-2000 and 202-353-1555.

 

Best impeachment wishes,

Tish

 

The whole push by the commentariat to label the nation, and President-Elect Obama, "center-right," is pathetic and ridiculous.  But it's also clearly a time honored effort to, as Duncan Black often says, "piss off liberals."

I therefore humbly suggest a response sort of like this:  In the old days, the policies espoused by Obama WOULD have been center-right -- tax cuts for the middle-class, infrastructure investment, prudent regulation of financial institutions, prudent use of American force abroad, etc.  Many Republicans from 20 years ago or more might have readily signed up for a platform like that.  If someone wants to call these things "center-right," that's fine, because it only how highlights how RADICALLY REACTIONARY the Bush Administration, the McCain campaign and the national Republican Party have become.  

When the party leaving power has pursued redistribution of weath to the wealthiest, tax cuts only for the well-off, laissez faire financial markets, regressive energy policy, perpetual war against ginned-up boogeymen, supression of science, dysfunctional emergency services and the systematic implementation of a kleptocracy of, by and for the well-connected, I imagine any REASONABLE policy position could be described as "center-right."  Finally, calling the incoming President "center-right" just gives more cover to those few actual "center-right" members of Congress (Snowe, Collins, Specter) to cooperate with Obama.  Call it whatever you want.  If it helps out working people and the credit redounds to the Democrats, I don't care much about the name.

This is a big relief for those of us who live in this district.  The incumbent, Wayne Gilchrest, is a moderate Republican and decent guy who was defeated in the primary by a conservative hack supported by the Club for Growth.  Gilchrest ended up endorsing Kratovil, the Democrat, in the general. 

When they finished the count on Election Night, Kratovil was up by 915 votes.  After the counting of absentee ballots he has more than doubled his lead to 2,003.  There are still 4,800 provisional ballots to count, but the trends were sufficient for AP and CNN to declare Kratovil the winner.

President Elect (I LOVE typing that) Obama should consider qualified Americans, who happen to be Muslim, for positions in his administration.   Not only would this go a long way towards his stated goal of having true diversity of background, thought and opinion in his cabinet, it would also send a tremendous message to America, our friends and our enemies.  If you think this kind of thing doesn't matter, look at how the Emmanuel hire has quickly allayed many folks' concerns about where Obama stands on Israel. 

Has any president ever been elected closer to his his families immigrant roots on either side?

I could'n't find easily where G.Washington's parents were born. I also remember some comments about whether Dukakis was American enough. Thanks for your help.

Obama is REAL. Like you can tell he is genuine unlike someone like Romney(who you can obviously tell is a shill and a phony). I heard a story about  how one time he cockblocked (yes he cockblocked) a young reporter who asked him a question at a town hall. The reporter was trying to impress a girl he was with and Obama embarassed him by telling him he didn't look like a reporter with a babyface like that. The reporter wrote an article about the encounter and Obama called him the NEXT DAY to apologize about messing up his game. I mean you can't make stuff like that up. It's a bit irrelevant but if you think a bout it, who, especially someone in his position, does stuff like this?

Do yourself a favor and read about Eugene Allen.

(Cross-posted at 1,369 lightbulbs.)

While you were celebrating Obama's win, then engaged fretting about Lieberman's affiliation and Reid's leadership, the insurgency has begun. Might be a good idea to keep at least one eye open, looking at what the other-side is doing.

Human Events - 11/05/2008
Congressional Silver Lining: 17 Reasons to Celebrate
by Mike Bober

Tom McClintock	Blaine Luetkemeyer
Duncan D. Hunter	Gregg Harper
Mike Coffman	Steve Austria
Bill Posey	Glenn Thompson
Tom Rooney	Dr. Phil Roe
Aaron Schock	Pete Olson
Brett Guthrie	Jason Chaffetz
Dr. Bill Cassidy	Cynthia Lummis
Erik Paulsen

No retreat
Election 2008: Conservative reaction to the GOP's defeat
WorldMag.com

"Let's remember that if Jimmy Carter hadn't won over Gerald Ford, we would never have had Ronald Reagan. If Bill Clinton hadn't won, we would never have had the Contract with America and the Republican ascendancy in Congress, which led to the balanced budget that Bill Clinton takes credit for. You never know what the consequences are going to be." - Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

"Conservative Christians must focus on ... wealth redistribution. This is fundamentally unscriptural and unbiblical. We are commanded to give on a personal, voluntary basis, not to allow Caesar to take more than what is his. This is where the 'values voters' and the 'fiscal conservatives' can work to rebuild the Reagan coalition. Wealth confiscation is fundamentally sinful, whatever the reason for doing so." - Larry Schweikart, professor of History, University of Dayton, Ohio

"I happen to believe that truth doesn't change because the American public decides to elect a different group of people with a different philosophy. The idea of principled conservatism and Christian conservatism is a standard that has stood the test of time and will stand the test of time. - Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

CNN - November 7, 2008
Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says
Scott J. Anderson

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told CNN that conservatives need to take back control of the GOP if the party is to return to its winning ways.

"Moderates never beat conservatives. We've seen that in past elections," he said.

Rejecting suggestions that the conservative movement was viewed as being out of touch with the electorate, Perkins says the Republican Party needs to go back to basics.

"It's a return to fundamental conservative principles that Ronald Reagan showed work and that people can be attracted to," Perkins said.

"Credibility will be essential for our primary task these next two years-to expose, dismantle and defeat the Democrat agenda." - Mike Pence (R-IN 6th) Letter, Dear Colleague Announcing Run for Conference Chair

(Cross-posted at 1,369 lightbulbs,)

Now, I just said that I like to run up the score. I wanted the Dems to get the 60 Senate seats, the filibuster-proof majority. What I didn't want was for them to get to a point where they hung by the thread of 60 votes, with Traitor Joe's finger at the kill-switch.

Lieberman's status in the Democratic caucus hangs by a thread - a thread attached to Harry Reid's finger. Yesterday, the two met, and it seemed Reid would put Lieberman over his knee at that point. It's known that Reid holds Lieberman in high personal regard, despite the shiv he put into Barack Obama's side in the form of a disgusting speech at the Republican National Convention. Lieberman also went well beyond the personal conviction of supporting his friend John McCain: he campaigned for Republicans in other races. His behavior demanded more than Reid's milquetoast statement today:

"Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong, and I'd like if we weren't on television, I'd use a stronger word of describing what he did," Reid told CNN's John King. "But Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators. He didn't support us on military stuff and he didn't support us on Iraq stuff. You look at his record, it's pretty good."

Greg Sargent may consider that "ratcheting up the rhetoric", but I only see it as another shadow punch by one of the sorriest leaders the Democrats have ever had.

That said, Lieberman has outdone him. The Connecticut "independent" actually threw down an ultimatum:

"Senator Lieberman's preference is to stay in the caucus, but he's going to keep all his options open," a Lieberman aide said. "McConnell has reached out to him and at this stage his position is he wants to remain in the caucus but losing the chairmanship is unacceptable."

"Unacceptable"? Let him keep his chairmanship of his committee, or else?

Need I remind this dude that he has no leverage? His guy lost! He turned his back on Obama, who'd campaigned for him against Ned Lamont in 2006, when Lieberman was fighting for his political life. What possible motivation should the Democrats have for not only keeping this guy in the fold, but caving to his demands in order to do so?

I never thought I'd say this, but the Democrats need to get in Joe Lieberman's face, if they can stoop that low, and...quote Dick Cheney. By this, I don't mean take away his chairmanship and let him take his ball and go home. Kick his ass right out of the caucus.

Josh Marshall spells it out:

...the simple fact is the Democrats don't need Joe Lieberman. He's not in a position to call anything 'unacceptable'. The Democrats didn't get to 60 votes or at least it now seems highly unlikely -- which was his only hope to have any continued relevance or position to bargain from. And the truth is that filibuster-busting votes are often made on an ad-hoc basis rather than on a party line. In any case, there'd be no more reason to trust he'd be there as a 60th vote as a Democrat than as a Republican.

If he pulls a Zell Miller, fine. His credibility is shot, and he cannot be trusted. Why would you want to depend upon someone like that? Let him accept the Republican invitation, sit on the other side of the aisle (with no chairmanship, by the way) and defeat him along with the rest of them. And there's no way Connecticut re-elects this cat. Why play yourself in the meantime?

As Marshall says, Reid and the Dems need to make it absolutely clear to Lieberman that this is not a negotiation. They should go Michael Corleone on him:

[Geary is demanding a large bribe for a gaming license] Senator Pat Geary: I want your answer and the money by noon tomorrow. And one more thing. Don't you contact me again, ever. From now on, you deal with Turnbull. Michael Corleone: Senator? You can have my answer now, if you like. My final offer is this: nothing.

Don't like the Godfather references?  For another shallow pop culture analogy, think Entourage.  I have heard tell that Ari Gold was modeled after Rahm's brother, who is an agent in LA.  Obama is Vince--great guy, but better for the presence of his pit bull.

OK, I realize this sort of gloating isn't real classy, but when my son sent this to me I instantly thought of three relatives and two co-workers who needed to see it. Really needed to see it.

http://www.236.com/video/2008/get_your_war_on_new_world_orde_10121.php

You may, too.

Heh.

I am referring to William Kristol.  He has a kind of permanent smirk which reinforces an impression that he often gives. He is one of those people like , say Cokie Roberts for example, whoa lwys seems to know something you don't know.  He is slightly irritated yet amused that he needs to explain whatever subject is at hand.

My question is, "Has he ever been right about anything?"

Truly, I would like to know.

Proud to be from OMAHA!!!

Anyone hoping the dog-and-pony photo op at Annapolis a year ago might yet bear fruit can stop deluding themselves and go back to awaiting the final arrival of that once-ballyhooed Y2K breakdown: Condi Rice says there won't be any Israeli/Palestinean settlement before Bush leaves office.

Boy! So near and yet so very, very, very far.

 

 

 

 

Read more »

Four years ago, during the hight of the Swift Boating of John Kerry, when it was looking more and more likely we would suffer four more years of Bush/Cheney, I told my friends and family that I hoped George W. Bush gets re-elected.  In fact I said I would be almost happy if he did.

Why?  Because the man's first term was an atrocious, piss-on-the-Constitution mess, but for some unknown reason people still liked him.  A second term would just about guarantee his disgrace and earn him a place among the worst Presidents ever.  It is safe to say that the last four years have achieved that admirably.

More important that Bush's disgrace, however, was Setting the Stage.  The first Bush term and the 2004 campaign made it painfully clear that the majority of American's had come to accept Fear and Loathing in Washington as part and parcel with American Politics.  Along with ignorance, superstition, lies, corruption and character assassination.  America was not ready for better, because they were so drugged on worse.

There are those how say drug abusers will not seek help until they hit rock bottom.  There are those who say that's BS.  But it is safe to say that America had to hit a political rock bottom before coming to it's senses.  At least 52% of us.  After hitting bottom, "good enough" was not good enough.  We didn't settle for good enough, instead we got great.

And now, What If . . .

What if, during the next four years, America gets used to hearing an intelligent, thoughtful voice in the White House?

What if people listen to President Obama's speeches, press conferences, State of the Union addresses, etc, instead of turning them down or tuning them off?

What if we become accustomed to hearing the President talk about policy, in clear-headed, straightforward terms.  Without the sugar-coating, the deflections, and re-directions and Red Herrings?

What if we actually like being addressed as adults, by another adult, rather that by an over-privileged third-grader condescending to other third-graders?

I have heard it said that Americans do not want a President who makes them feel stupid.  They do not want a President who is smarter then them.  They want a President who is a on their level.  That is a crappy way to look at it, but the Bush years seem to support the hypothesis.  But Obama, while very intelligent, is humble.  He is non-threatening.  He can sound smart AND make people feel good about themselves, because he quietly insists that we are all in this together.  He makes all of us feel important.  We are all the President, he is just the one with the title.  That is why he is already a great leader, and why he will continue to be.  That is why, after eight years of Obama, Americans may actually elect ANOTHER smart wo/man to the office.  Hey, wouldn't THAT be great?

Although by a slim margin, Californians choose to build a new high-speed rail system from San Diego to Sacramento with several stops in the Golden state.

I am so very happy!

A fun piece from Zina Saunders.

UPDATE: Whoops! Here's a link to the book, for those who want more! There's a few more pics in there.

Barack Obama held his first press conference as President Elect today in Chicago. Flanked by 17 economic advisors, Obama struck a serious tone, clearly emphasizing economic stimulus as a priority.

While maintaining the steady calm Obama displayed throughout his campaign, he also injected a few moments of lightheardedness. Joking about what type of dog his children will choose, he referred to himself as a "mutt," the likely choice of dog the family will take to the White House.

Prepared Remarks:

Question & Answer (First ten minutes of thirteen total)

The press conference was held following Obama's first economic roundtable as President Elect.

Hutch had his Starsky. Murtagh had his Riggs. Bush had his Cheney. Obama needs a bad cop.

His choice of Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff has been a somewhat controversial first step for the incoming administration. Republicans have pounced on Emanuel's reputation as a fierce partisan, decrying the hollowness of Obama's appeal to new politics and bipartisanship. Some progressives, for their part, decry Emanuel's ties to Blue Dogs and recruitment of centrists candidates in conservative districts, a decision which has simultaneously expanded the Democratic caucus and shifted it rightward.

Neither criticism really says what it means to say. Emanuel is, indeed, a fierce partisan, but he also spent years in a chastened Clinton White House working with a newly-ascendant Republican Congress, confident and combative, to move legislation forward. Emanuel has groomed middle-of-the-road Democrats and provided them with the inroads to influence that will ease their re-election, but his own politics are further to the left than most of them. He's no Blue Dog.

What both criticisms really reveal is Emanuel's pragmatic political realism and his determination to win.

Politics ain't beanbag. All those hard-nosed Democrats who feared a teddy bear administration would try to cuddle its partisan enemies and find itself brutally de-fluffed have less reason to worry. Bipartisanship really isn't about airy rhetoric and putting aside the politics of yesterday. The rhetoric has its place in appealing to the masses -- in tandem with Obama's huge grassroots organization, still in place -- to apply pressure from the bottom. But the real work of bipartisanship occurs around conference tables in meeting rooms with stale donuts and cold coffee in paper cups. The real work of bipartisanship is a sometimes ugly game of horse-trading and political pressure and trickery. The real work of bipartisanship needs a guy who knows the corridors of power, knows everybody's secrets. Bipartisanship demands a bad cop, not a good cop.

Sausages and legislation, indeed.

So this appointment doesn't necessarily entail a shift to the center. Then again, maybe it does. That remains to be seen. What it certainly shows is a determination to pass legislation as quickly and competently as possible. Previous Democratic administrations spent the first half of their first term flailing, and Obama's team will inevitably make its share of missteps, too. But if they want to minimize mistakes and and maximize legislative effectiveness, Rahm Emanuel is their guy. Whatever his own colorful personality, he still fits into the larger narrative of a no drama Obama.

Speaking of missteps: Some have suggested that announcing Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff before anybody else and within 48 hours of winning the Presidency was a mistake. Whatever Emanuel's merits his controversial selection is a wobbly first step that might bind Obama's hands from tapping equally-controversial Larry Summers for Treasury. As Noam Scheiber puts it:

It's not just that, if Obama picked Summers, he'd suddenly have two people in very senior positions who don't quite fit his "no drama" mantra. It's that he'd have two people who don't quite fit the "no drama" mold as two of his first appointments. Worse, he'd have two people whose mere announcements (to say nothing of they're actual tenures) stirred up more than a little drama--Rahm because of his public anguishing and Summers because of the lefty mau-mauing he's already inspiring. . . . [Y]ou only want so many bad, appointment-related, news cycles out of the gate.

I think that's wrong. If any President gets a honeymoon in his first hundred days -- and for Obama it might be his first two hundred -- the intensity of press adulation in the first 48 hours is even more staggering. Obama has a huge free pass from the press right now which makes it exactly the time to make controversial choices. Scheiber is right that there's a critical mass of divisive appointments beyond which a negative narrative will stick. But I think it would take more than Emanuel and Summers.

The reaction on the left to Obama's choice of Emanuel -- and mere consideration of Summers -- reminds me of the concern trolling in the week or two in June after Obama sealed the nomination. Many in the progressive blogosphere thought their nominee was betraying the cause of liberalism by abandoning campaign finance reform and not taking a strong stand against FISA. Some were convinced it would bring about Obama's downfall at the polls in November.

Right.

So don't listen to anybody who tries to tell you that the very act of selecting Rahm Emanuel -- or, should he so decide, Larry Summers -- is going to hobble Obama's administration. Hell, Obama doesn't even have an administration yet. Seriously, guys: chill.


Thanks for reading. If you found this post valuable I'd hugely appreciate it if you'd click 'recommend'! I'd also love to hear your thoughts in the comments below -- see you there.

BBC suggests the photo may have been doctored.  Kim may be sick, but the inconsistencies in the photo analysis raise more questions.

Read more »

Barack Obama appears determined to assuage fears about his 'socialism'. He's standing in front of a cadre of heavy hitters on the economy who, by appearance, are lending support to his plans for addressing the current economic free fall.

David Bonior (Member House of Representatives 1977-2003)

· Warren Buffett (Chairman and CEO, Berkshire Hathaway)-will participate via speakerphone

· Roel Campos (former SEC Commissioner)
Story continues below

· William Daley (Chairman of the Midwest, JP Morgan Chase; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Commerce, 1997-2000)

· William Donaldson (Former Chairman of the SEC 2003-2005)

· Roger Ferguson (President and CEO, TIAA-CREF and former Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve)

· Jennifer Granholm (Governor, State of Michigan)

· Anne Mulcahy (Chairman and CEO, Xerox)

· Richard Parsons (Chairman of the Board, Time Warner)

· Penny Pritzker (CEO, Classic Residence by Hyatt)

· Robert Reich (University of California, Berkeley; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Labor, 1993-1997)

· Robert Rubin (Chairman and Director of the Executive Committee, Citigroup; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Treasury, 1995-1999)

· Eric Schmidt (Chairman and CEO, Google)

· Lawrence Summers (Harvard University; Managing Director, D.E. Shaw; Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Treasury, 1999-2001)

· Laura Tyson (Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley; Former Chairman, National Economic Council, 1995-1996; Former Chairman, President's Council of Economic Advisors, 1993-1995)

· Antonio Villaraigosa (Mayor, City of Los Angeles)

· Paul Volcker (Former Chairman, U.S. Federal Reserve 1979-1987)

Still reeling from the punishing defeat handed to them by victorious Democrats on Election Day, Republicans are licking their wounds and debating their strategy for a comeback. As Democrats and progressives celebrate our hard-won victory, we should also be keeping an eye on our vanquished opponents and preparing to remain on the offensive against them, whatever comeback road they attempt to pursue. For the sake of the future, we cannot allow a repeat of 1980, 1994, or 2000.

Most observers see two major possibilities for the GOP. One is that the party could stick with its rural, white, ultra-conservative base and become the party of the far right, thus alienating moderates, independents, and swing voters, many of whom would likely migrate to the Democratic Party and join the ranks of conservative-leaning "Blue Dogs" like Virginia senator Jim Webb. The other possibility is that the GOP could move toward a more moderate and less ideological, center-right position that could make it more attractive to independents and swing voters but at the same time would tend to alienate the conservative base. Neither is an exceedingly attractive option for the GOP, since either would likely result in the loss of one or another key Republican voting block. The electoral success of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II depended upon a united Republican coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, defense hawks, and "Reagan Democrats." That coalition has now fallen apart.

I personally hope the Republicans will take the former choice, stick with their demented base, and become a far-right fringe party doomed to increasing irrelevance as old bigots die off and their children discard the prejudices, fears, and hatreds of the past. This is what may well happen if far-right blowhards like Rush Limbaugh have their way, warning their shell-shocked followers now against a moderate takeover of the GOP led by once-and-future-maverick John McCain and other hands-across-the-aisle types, whose ranks will seek to purge the party of "real conservatives" like Sarah Palin and those who identify with her. Never exceedingly popular among those on the far right, McCain is already being branded a defeatist and a traitor by the Limbaugh-Palin crowd, who are incensed by the attacks on Palin now coming from within the McCain camp itself, and who increasingly regret that McCain was ever nominated even as they are in his debt for giving them "their Sarah." Meanwhile, angry dittoheads at RedState.com have launched a bitter assault on Palin's Republican critics called "Operation Leper," and appear poised to advocate for Palin as a presidential candidate for 2012 and/or 2016. Perhaps we will see a full-fledged Palin faction form within the Republican Party in opposition to the forces of Republican moderation, leading to an all-out faction fight and perhaps even a split in the party. I sincerely hope so.

If, on the other hand, the Republicans choose the path of moderation, returning perhaps to the GOP of Eisenhower and Goldwater, our work could be a little more difficult. This possibility highlights the importance of maintaining the center-to-left coalition that enabled us to win in 2006 and 2008 just as their center-to-right coalition enabled Republicans to win in 1980, 1994, and 2000, as it raises the risk of swing voters swinging back to the Republican side if they are not happy with the job Democrats are doing in Washington. Those of us such as myself who are on the Left of the Democratic Party will have to balance our expectation of having a place at the table with the realization that the rest of the country isn't with us just yet. At least in the near term, the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress will have to govern more-or-less from the center, and at the same time will have to prove that they are more capable of governing the country effectively than their opponents. Given the dominance of the far-right in today's GOP and its dependence on the conservative base, however, owing in part to the fact that so many moderate Republicans have either left the party or been voted out of office, I wonder how realistic or likely a route this second option actually is. I could be wrong, but I suspect hopefully that our opponents will remain in the funk they are currently in for quite some time to come.

Whatever course they may ulimately choose to take, our task as Democrats is to stop any GOP comeback dead in its tracks before it even starts. Democrats must remain on the offensive and must remain focused on solidifying and building our congressional majority in 2010, re-electing President Obama in 2012, and putting another Democrat in the White House in 2016. We must aggressively go after not only Republican congressional seats but also state and local offices nationwide. Grassroots Democratic organizing, voter registration, fundraising, and media activism are key to this, as is maintaining a strong center-to-left coalition through effective, balanced governance. We must demonstrate to the Republicans that they are dealing with a new, much tougher, much more aggressive and effective Democratic Party: a Democratic Party that won't be so easy to kick around as in the past, a Democratic Party whose days of whining about mean old swiftboating Republicans are over.

If we are to avoid a repeat of the last eight years or something even worse, no Republican comeback can ever be allowed to happen. 

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

In Judith Miller's latest post in the NYTimes, she wonders, as I do, whether our children comprehend the significance of Tuesday's election. 

I just wanted to take this opportunity to say two things:  First, My man-crush on the host of this site grows stronger by the day.  Second, and on a completely related note, I could not agree more with Josh's post on the front page right now.  I take back every remotely measured, moderate word I have ever uttered about Joe Lieberman.  To hell with him. 

This isn't about us, Joe.  As usual, it is about YOU.  You want to caucus with your true friends?  Go to it.  You think you're going to miss Johnny Maverick that much?  Go to it.  You deserve each other.  And if I live to see the day, G-d willing and Inshallah, every dime I donate to re-electing Barack Obama will be matched by a contribution to the Democratic candidate running to unseat you.

The only question remaining in my mind is what I will call you so that I never have to speak or type your name again.  The rest is silence...

 

This is exactly why.  

Missouri doesn't want to jump to any premature conclusions. We are the "Show-me" state, after all. I've long considered the "bellweather" status as just a flike.  The race is very close and I guess there could be a recount. McCain is leading Obama by about 5,000 votes and there are some 7,000 provisional ballots that still need to be counted. Most of these are likely to be Democratic voters based on geography...but these voters were aparently too befuddled to find their way to the right polling place. If they went to the wrong polling place the vote won't be counted even if they were otherwise qualified. It takes a while to figure out who is qualified and why they were given a provisional ballot. And at this point, who cares anyway.  

Joeseph Stiglitz and the Vanity Fair article "Reversal of Fortune" Describing how ideology, special-interest pressure, populist politics, and sheer incompetence have left the U.S. economy on life support, the author puts forth a clear, commonsense plan to reverse the Bush-era follies and regain America's economic sanity.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz November 2008

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/11/stiglitz200811?currentPage=2

In the best traditions of the media, I'll follow up a substantive post with one focused almost entirely on process issues. (Thanks again to all who chimed in; that was a fantastic discussion.) The topic of the day - and likely of the week, and perhaps the next two months - is the presidential transition. So I thought I'd offer a few thoughts of my own: 

Sorry to toot my own prescience, but no one else will do it for me. Last February, when Democratic primary fires still burned brightly, there was a lot of concern among Democrats that McCain would prove to be a formidable candidate because of his experience, military record, media popularity, reputation as a straight-shooter, and appeal among independents. I wanted to write about McCain's chances, but I concluded that attempting to predict the relative importance to voters of experience vs. change, national security vs. economy, straight-shooting vs. smooth-talking, etc. was wild guesswork. Instead, I decided to focus on McCain's track record as campaigner. In one of my very first political blog posts, called Overestimating McCain, I wrote that McCain's primary campaign had been nearly crushed by lackluster fundraising, poor planning, fiscal mismanagement, and infighting and that McCain was so out of touch with campaign operations that he was "started and enraged" to he learn that his campaign had run out of money. Moreover, the sagging fortunes of his campaign eventually reversed only because of positive news from Iraq and the titanic implosion of rival Rudy Giuliani's campaign rather than because of any clever tactical changes on McCain's part. I also contrasted the Republican cakewalk of a primary with the fiercely competitive Democratic primary, in which both of the main candidates smashed fundraising records and drew record numbers of voters.

Ignoring the personal attributes that the pundits used to measure McCain's chances, I proposed an alternative thesis: "a well-run primary campaign augurs a well-run general election campaign, and the inverse, a poorly-run primary campaign augurs a poorly-run general election campaign." As McCain's media popularity and perceptions of his honesty veered wildly, as unpredictable events changed voters' priorities, as independents swayed to and fro, one factor remained constant: John McCain ran an unfocused, cash poor, badly planned, bitterly divided campaign. Obama, by contrast, ran an organized, disciplined, creative, well-funded, brilliant campaign, just as he did in the primary. The next time I attempt to gauge a candidate's electability, I know where to look.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cross posted at dagblog.com, where the bloggers can see the future. Except that Articleman was wrong about Georgia.

Israel implied Obama and the US would appear weak if the United States spoke with Iran.  The Israels have not adequately explained why they have lost hope despite the mandate for change.

Obama should (politely) ignore Israel's meaningless caution.  The burden is on Israel to show why she is unwilling to listen to Iran.

Israel has not made a strong case for deafness nor for her double standard on hope. Ironically, by calling Obama,  Israel shows it values talking. Israel has the hope that an exchange of ideas will influence others. Why not the same with Iran, Israel? 

Israel must be ready to listen to the US-Iranian discussions. More forgeries about Iran show Israel isn't interested in reality.

Read more »

Here's an idea.  With all the talk about how Barack needs to go either very progressive or tack toward the middle (whatever that is) how about this instead:

Why doesn't he just pass the very agenda he ran on, you know like, keep his word to the people who voted for him?

Why do all these pundits think that a guy who was elected with the clearest mandate since Ronald Reagan needs anybody's advice on how to proceed?  It isn't that hard.

Has DC hardcore band Bad Brains, who were famously "Banned in DC" almost thirty years ago, been asked to play President-elect Obama's inaugural gala? Of course not. So far, there's no evidence that they're even being considered. But you can help change that by joining my all-in-good-fun Facebook group, 300 million strong to get Bad Brains to play Obama's inauguration:

Lower Oil Prices--But For How Long?

Brad Plumer at TNR quotes the Financial Times, which claims to know what the IEA is about to publish, and notes that oil futures are rising:

    Oil prices will rebound to more than $100 a barrel as soon as the world economy recovers, and will exceed $200 by 2030, the International Energy Agency will say in its flagship report to be published next week.

    "While market imbalances could temporarily cause prices to fall back, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the era of cheap oil is over," the report states.

    The developed world's energy watchdog has doubled its long-term price expectation from last year's $108 a barrel for 2030 and assumes oil prices will rebound from today's $60-$70 a barrel to trade, in real terms adjusted by inflation, at an average of more than $100 a barrel from 2008 to 2015.

    The IEA's World Energy Outlook has come to this conclusion largely because it believes companies will struggle to pump enough new oil to offset the steep production declines of the world's older fields.

The IEA assumption is that the world economy will recover enough to raise demand for oil - somewhere. Peak Oiler doomers have always written about that one day when the economy will grind to a stop as oil becomes unavailable, when survivalists retreat to their farms or bunkers and the rest of us grow mohawks and fight over fuel. Reality seems to be far more complicated, with some third world countries in full disarray, some developing countries unable to maintain electricity for their industries and the world economy in a financial crisis and headed towards a recession or worse. Energy seems to be at the core of everything, though.

It seems like a growing mob of democrats are screaming for Sen. Lieberman's head on a silver plate. This vindictive feud is of course the result of the figurative stab in the back that democrats feel his election behavior amounted to. It is high time for the new democratic mandate to practice what they preached with righteous conviction during the election. Bipartisanship and reaching across the isle is tossed around every election cycle but usually dismissed when you end up on the right side of the isle. You might consider Lieberman to be the epitome of the sleazy self-serving politician and I would be inclined to agree. The important thing to acknowledge is that this insight is of little relevance. He is a sitting senator and America has, honest to god,  real humongous problems to deal with. Time to grow up and realize that every vote in the senate should be courted with frantic zeal, especially those that aren't already under the democratic umbrella.

I think, and hope, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is aware of this. I fear that he will be labeled spineless for welcoming Lieberman back into the democratic caucus. Say what you will about Reid but he has shown himself to be a pragmatist, a good trait when it comes down to senate business. Reid, Pelosi and the democratic congress at large proved to be lacking as opposition to a strong president and republican party but I think their willingness to back down will serve them well as the party in charge. The democrats are now in a position to get their agenda through but you still need to play the game. Nothing good will come out of kicking Lieberman to the curb in the spirit of vengeance.

There are valid reasons to boot Lieberman though. It could be useful for future reference to publicly display that the democratic party won't be played a fool. The democrats will have to weigh if it is important enough to make an example out of Lieberman to keep other votes from going rogue in contrast to the importance Lieberman's own vote could be to critical issues. Personally, I think stripping him of his chairmanship will have few positive consequences and will probably cause the republicans to dig in and man their trenches in preparation for a partisan congress.

In a democratic society, the time to strike with the iron fist comes when the gutless senator from Connecticut is up for re-election. Throw him out in true democratic fashion and let the actual congress rise above high school food fights. The last 8 years is damming proof of what a bickering congress can accomplish. The democrats are probably strong enough to drive home some important changes with the republican party on ignore. But if they want to take on the really tough issues, bipartisanship will have to be more then a nice word that is exploited to get elected.



 

The company has changed its name from Diebold Election Systems to Premier Election Solutions, but the problems with these paperless, completely unverifiable machines continue. A judge in Colorado impounded one of the machines after reports of vote flipping, and a judge in Northumberland County in Pennsylvania impounded 185 of the machines after complaints from both Democratic and Republican officials there. These are the same machines that were used throughout the state of Georgia. There are also reports that Diebold's central tabulating system is dropping thousands of votes. The full story is reported by Brad Friedman at BradBlog.com.

Excerpts:

All 185 of the completely unverifiable Diebold touch-screen voting machines used in Northumberland County, PA's election were ordered impounded by a judge Tuesday night after complaints from both the Republican and Democratic parties. Officials from both parties had filed requested action following reports from voters that straight-party ticket votes were not showing voters the names of their selection for President on the summary screen near the end of the 100% faith-based touch-screen voting process.

*****

While one Diebold AccuVote touch-screen machine was impounded by an official in Colorado following reports of votes flipping on the screen from Democratic to Republican candidates in early voting --- and even with hundreds of similar startling problems reported directly to the Obama campaign as The BRAD BLOG reported exclusively on Monday --- no other action was taken on or before Election Day to remove these wholly unverifiable systems from use until Tuesday night's court-ordered quarantine of the Northumberland County machines.

The same unverifiable machines made by Diebold were used in a number of states, including the entirety of Georgia where a run-off has been scheduled following a tight race for the U.S. Senate there. The same models were also found, by a landmark Princeton study in 2006, to be easily susceptible to malicious viruses that could result in a flipped election which would be difficult, if not impossible, to discover...

*****

To make matters worse this year, Diebold admitted in late August of this year that their GEMS central tabulator system routinely drops thousands of votes from uploaded totals without notifying the system administrator that there was an error.

That failure, first discovered by election officials in Ohio, and originally denied by the voting machine company, exists on Diebold tabulators used in 34 states on Tuesday. The problem affects all votes cast on both optical-scan paper ballot systems (such as those used in several counties in the razor-thin Franken/Coleman U.S. Senate race, now set for a manual recount in Minnesota) and touch-screen systems manufactured by the company.

The critical programming flaw which causes the problem has been in the GEMS systems for some 10 years before they finally admitted to the problem just over two months ago while being sued by Ohio's Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner, after the failure was confirmed by election officials in Hamilton County, Ohio.

Is it too much to ask for an election that can be verified with paper receipts? Whatever the Obama administration has on its to-do list, I hope that this is one of the priorities that is right at the top. 

David Brooks sums up my expectations for the next administration pretty well. He expects a smart, well reasoned administration to buckle down and do what is right for the country, not wage ideological wars:

Walking into the Obama White House of my dreams will be like walking into the Gates Foundation. The people there will be ostentatiously pragmatic and data-driven. They'll hunt good ideas like venture capitalists. They'll have no faith in all-powerful bureaucrats issuing edicts from the center. Instead, they'll use that language of decentralized networks, bottom-up reform and scalable innovation.

This is, of course, a much different 'conservative' opinion than those being expressed on Townhall.com, Redstate.com, or Rush Limbaugh's radio program. Limbaugh yesterday continued to push the language of fear, affirming that what we do not know about Obama (what IS that exactly?) will scare us to death.

For what it's worth, credit where credit is due-- Sean Hannity gave a gracious and mature congratulations to President-elect Obama at the beginning of his radio show Wednesday afternoon. I respect the man a little more because of it. I wish I could find audio of it...

Yesterday, Fareed Zakaria and I were both interviewed on Canada's CBC Radio program "The Current" by the show's host, Anna Maria Tremonti.  She was exploring the task facing President-elect Obama in dealing with a world where the U.S. is no longer the sole superpower. 

Zakaria is the author of The Post-American World, which Senator Obama has apparently been reading.  I was on the show because of my recently published book The End of the American Century.  The interview can be heard at this link.

Ms. Tremonti asked Mr. Zakaria if he had written the book specifically for Obama.  Zakaria said no, but said that he had favored Obama from the very beginning of the primary campaign, and thought that Obama, more than any of the other candidates, understood the situation the U.S. is facing. 

Zakaria's book has the look of a foreign policy blueprint for the new administration, and concludes with a section on "New Rules for a New Age" which lists "six simple guidelines" for how the U.S. should deal with the rest of the world.

Zakaria himself is smart, articulate, and sees the big picture.  Like Obama, he is a symbol of a new global era.  He was born in India, came to the U.S. as a young man, and has flourished here.

Could he be a candidate for Secretary of State?

Dear President-elect Obama,

After an impressive win on Tuesday, Obama has taken a hold of the transition. I have never seen anything like this; he has really hit the ground running and is ready to govern.

 

Web sites foretell a YouTube presidency

CHICAGO | The Web address won't change, but WhiteHouse.gov will never look the same. The Chicago-based team that made the Internet such a force in helping Barack Obama win the presidency is moving to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. The president-elect already is up with Change.gov, a site that mimics the style and visuals of his campaign site and asks supporters to help with the transition by sharing their stories and their visions for America. The message is one of participation in government, and new users are told: "Thanks for signing up to join us in remaking Washington." When the Illinois Democrat takes the oath of office Jan. 20, WhiteHouse.gov is likely to get a complete makeover in the style of Change.gov and the campaign site Barack Obama.com.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/nov/07/web-sites-foretell-a-youtube-presidency/

I have noticed a strange tendency among some of the democratic party faithful following their recent victory.  Their hearts are filled with long-held grievances and lingering suspicions resulting in an inability to move forward as one nation, working with republicans to accomplish our many challenging tasks.  Ironically enough, the main theme of Barack's candidacy. 

I struggled to put the hysteria into words until I remembered this clip from Monty Python And The Holy Grail.

Read more »

The University of Texas head coach Mack Brown dismissed lineman Buck Burnette after the former player posted a comment on his Facebook page.

"all the hunters gather up, we have a #$%&er in the whitehouse"

The story was reported today in "The Austin-American Statesman".

The Facebook posting has been removed, but the screen was captured and saved and can be found with a little googling. 

The coach wasted no time in dismissing the player.  He met with the athletic director and announced the dismissal shortly after hearing about the posting.

Mr. Burnette issued an apology to the public and to the team expressing his regret.  The report stated that the player was re-posting a text message he had received from someone else.  .

Attention Dick Cheney: According to your own administration's interpretation of that pesky document known as the Constitution:

"The executive functions of the Vice President include participation in Cabinet meetings and, by statute, membership on the National Security Council and the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution."

So watch out, Smithsonian Institution employees! Until January 20 at noon, you may be waterboarded at the whim of the soon-to-be-former vice president.

Seems that people are worried about the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Obama's Chief of Staff.

The appointments of Axelrod and Emanuel represent that Obama is
maintaining one key element of the Bush White House: staying on
political message while governing.  He has re-branded the transition
as Change.gov, kept his "Rove" at his side and brought in the guy
credited with positioning the Dems for their win in 2006.  He is not
going to just drop the campaign now he is President.  

I helped watch polls for the challenger, Bill Hedrick, in this district and witnessed the high amount of provisionals myself. 

Here is an email I  recieved about the race.

****

Subj: This race isn't over yet - Make sure every vote counts!

Dear Friends and Supporters,

 

We may be down, but we are by no means out.  This race truly is too close to call until every last vote has been counted.

 

That, however, is not stopping Ken Calvert from trying to end the counting before we can close the gap. Calvert's lawyer is already challenging signatures and trying to get vote-by-mail ballots disqualified. 

 

Today (two days after the election), Ken Calvert told the OC Register that he's sure he won re-election.  We beg to differ.  With 100,000+ votes still left to be counted and a vote difference of only about 4000 votes, it looks like he knows he's in trouble, and is trying to declare a victory before all the votes have been counted.  We can NOT let this happen.

 

We have assembled a legal team to make sure the process is fair and that all valid ballots get counted.  We have the best lawyer money can buy, but good lawyers are expensive.

 

Can you donate to the Hedrick Ballot Fund right now to help pay our legal costs and make sure every vote is counted?

 

http://www.actblue.com/page/hedrickballotfund

 

Do not let Calvert steal this election.  We don't need another Florida 2000 popping up here in Riverside.  We are making waves and even the national press has taken notice that the race for the 44th isn't over yet.

 

Here's an excerpt from today's Huffington Post:

Two days after the Nov. 4 elections, a congressional race in conservative Orange County, California that was dismissed by most observers as a lock for the GOP remains unresolved.  Democratic challenger Bill Hedrick is down by about 4,600 votes against 16-year incumbent Republican Ken Calvert in the 44th congressional district, but nearly 100,000 provisional and vote-by-mail absentee ballots have yet to be counted.

GOP lawyers are descending on registrars' offices in Orange and Riverside, the district's two counties, trying to influence the vote counting which began today.

Of the 200,000 Riverside County ballots to be counted, about half are from the 44th district. According to Rebecca Martine, Riverside County's chief deputy registrar, 47,000 provisional ballots represent 38,000 on paper and 9,000 electronic provisional ballots.

Calvert's team has apparently been having private conversations with the registrar's office in Riverside County, which was the last county in California to report its election results. There were numerous reports from Democratic Party officials, voters and even a poll worker in Riverside County that voters were "forced to use provisional ballots" or "denied ballots entirely" on Tuesday.

Our story of 'too close to call' has also popped up on DailyKos, the National Journal, Calitics, Swing State Project, Politicker, the OC Register, and the Press Enterprise.

The country is watching.  This race for the 44th is not over.  We have the chance to beat Ken Calvert, as long as we can afford the legal tools to insure every vote is counted.

 

Please donate to our legal fund today.

 

http://www.actblue.com/page/hedrickballotfund

 

Sincerely,

 

Bill Hedrick

 Am i the only one that feels it may actually be more important to have a strong Speaker in the Senate for the coming Obama administration than it was during Bush? Couldn't (shouldn't?) Hillary just beat his ass down and take the gavel? Okay, pardon that. But the image of Obama and Biden in the White House with Pelosi runnin the House and Hillary runnin the Senate sure looks attractive in my political fantasy life.

 Be that as it may, the lack of leadership that Reid has shown during the Bush debacle on critical issues must be seen in a new light given the result of the election. Building consensus around bending over for the majority was not the leadership this country seeks or deserves, nor has it been an effective strategy if one's purpose is to represent all of us and to uphold the constitution. The basic tenet that Reid has held is clearly "if you don't have the votes, don't take a stand." This has meant that the Democratic party has facilitated and enabled the very same policies that have brought domestic and global catastrophies. Cheney/Enron's energy policy, the war in Iraq, the looting of the treasury to pay off the Bush base in the form of the "tax cut", domestic spying, etc. On absolutely none of these did Reid lead his colleagues to stand, to a person, in opposition to class warfare, environmental destruction, or unprovoked war. Sane people everywhere and even the planet itself were sold out and given no voice, and the rationale was that it would hurt the party politically if the media took the administration side. No rape of justice or abuse of power or violation of our constitution was reason enough for Reid to lead Democrats to stand in unified opposition to the Bush administration, even after his popularity had faded. No sir, that is not leadership. That is aiding and abetting, and is recognized as such. And when the aiding and abetting becomes obvious and potentially prosecutable, as with the domestic spying program? Show "leadership" by hurrying through legislation that makes the crime retroactively legal.  

 And now it appears that Reid is unwilling to take a stand and rightfully revoke the chair, held by Democrats, that (Independent) Joe Lieberman still holds after campaigning against the Democratic party and casting aspersions on the judgement and character of our nominee, President-elect Obama. Given Reid's legacy thus far, this is just the icing on the cake. Unfortunately he may also be setting a precedent, and i don't want him doing that anymore --neither accidentally nor on purpose. 

Can we get some leadership now, please? 

Thanks to EdA for the link to this. It shows that Lawrence Summers is basically the Dick Cheney of Economics. Human lives in developing nations are clearly worth less in economic terms than those in developed nations, so we should export our waste accordingly.

As the then-Secretary of the Environment of Brazil, Jose Lutzenberger wrote to him: "Your reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane..."

 The article begins: "On December 12, 1991, the chief economist for the World Bank, Lawrence Summers, wrote an internal memo that was leaked to the environmental community... "

Check the link to see the rest of what Lawrence had to say:

http://www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/summers.html

 

 

 

 

 

The American population seems to be psychysophrenic in the way that they voted this year. For instance voters in California voted for Obama but also for banning gay marriages. While in Missouri, voters were even about who they wanted for president, but voted by a large percentage to ban gays from adopting children. Although Obama wants to unite the American people, a large segment of the American poplulation fears others who are somehow different from them. I believe that this is residue from the politics of fear that started in the nineties and continued during the second Bush administration. This politics of fear makes the American people want to return to the good old days of the fifties. But during the fifities a lot of civil rights were taken away and now seemed to imperil again with the current discrimination against gays. Obama must tell the American people that it is not just up to him to unite the country, but also for Americans must abandon their personal hatred themselves. To get Americans to overcome their fear and embrace the humanity of everyone maybe tougher than fixing the economy.

 

P.S. I'm not gay, but just sick of fear factor politics.

PUHLEEEEZ!!

After eight years of an exceedingly partisan WH, republicans have no credibility whatsoever in throwing partisan stones at Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff.

The Republican Party is already a joke and in not recognizing how ridiculous they look assures they'll continue their nosedive into insignificance. Having already rewritten the record book for screwups they insist upon making sure their record will forever remain unbroken.