"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
  - Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm curious to know who might have read today's op-ed by Brooks in the Times and what your thoughts are about the ideas expressed.  Not being an economics guru by any means, I am skeptical about both the free market fundamentalism of the neocons and the Keynesian ideas now back in vogue.  While I think Brooks may have some good points about faith and trust in the market, it does not appear that he has much to say about what actions Obama et al could take to help restore faith and trust, or at least improve them measurably.  Your thoughts?

I am disappointed, though not terribly surprised, in NBC's choice of David Gregory to be the next moderator of Meet the Press.  I was hoping for someone more forward looking, who will move the show to a 21st century approach (whatever that is!).  While I may be in a distinct minority on this point, I believe the media definitely need to provide at least one Sunday show that works hard at being objective both in choice of guests and in the moderator's perspective and tone of questioning.  That is not to say that questions should be milque-toast.  Questiononing can be probing, inciteful without being offensive or demeaning.

With the many options available online, all partisan and ideological voices can now be heard without fear of being marginalized or drowned out.  What we need is an intentional choice to provide a forum to draw out the authentic voice of the guests in perhaps an even disarming way, rather than what is becoming so prevalent, the gotcha, antagonistic approach that forces a guarded, even at times defensive, response.

David Gregory does not fit the bill.  He, more than some I think would have been better, is not very good at objectivity.  His bias creeps in even when he does not appear to want it to.  He is also not as articulate as I think is needed for a moderator.  Maybe it is too much in our post-post-modern era to expect that a journalist/moderator would choose to strive to be the ultimate in objectivity because it would mean refraining from any editorial comment and forgoing the attack-dog tone and style that seems to be so dominant these days.

Here ends the wishful thinking.

Has anyone seen any discussion in TPM world about the constitutional issue regarding Hillary Clinton being nominated for Secretary of State?  Apparently at least some legal scholars believe Article I, Section 6 effectively prohibits her because she was in office when the salaries of Cabinet officers were increased.  I'm curious to know if anyone thinks this will be a significant issue either in Obama's final decision to select her or, if she is nominated, in the Senate confirmation hearings. It seems to me if this is an issue for her, it would be for any member of Congress being named to the Cabinet.  An interesting thought: had this problem occurred to Obama, a former teacher of Constitutional Law, before Pete Williams of NBC raised it on MSNBC earlier this week?

Somehow it is so much easier to just read the various items that show on the front page of the TPM site and follow links and comments of interest than it is to coherently comment or write blog entries.  I have great respect and admiration for those who can write so prolifically and well.

This election season/cycle has be fascinating.  I'm sure one reason for that is the availability of so many thoughts, ideas and stories via the Internet.  Another is the emergence of so many strong candidates for president and the historical nature of the campaign and ultimate choices.  I continue to be interested in the on-going election stories, especially the Senate seats still not decided, but I'm also interested in comments on major news stories of the day.  I will be eagerly watching how this site evolves over the next few years hoping and expecting that as it grows, there will continue to be good writing, genuine thinking, and a commitment to integrity both in source verification and authenticity of voice with a minimum of snark just for the sake of snark while injecting some appropriate humor for the pure fun of it.

I came to this site for the first time as a result of reading about it in John Dean's book, Conservatives Without Conscience, well over a year ago.  TPM remains since then part of my daily news intake.  Thanks, and keep up the good work Josh and company.  Maybe your lead will eventually get me passed one of the psychological barriers that keeps me from regularly commenting and initiating my own posts - that is, wondering whether or not I have anything to say that anyone else would find of interest or value.

An interesting phenomenon occurred today at the Cerro Gordo County Democratic Convention.  From the beginning of the day to the point where delegates to the state convention were determined, Clinton lost and Edwards gained.  Also interesting, was the fact that on caucus night, Clinton was the winner in this county.  As of today, the delegate count for the state convention from this county is as follows:  Obama - 19, Clinton - 15, Edwards - 12.  Had the delegates been determined on the original registration this morning, Clinton would have had 16 and Edwards 11.

The number of county delegates after the official registration (delegates and alternates officially seated) today was Obama - 75, Clinton - 61, Edwards - 44, Biden - 1.  After the realignment, Edwards had 48 - picking up the one Biden delegate and presumably others from Clinton, although I only know the specific Edwards count because I was a delegate in that camp today and am one of the twelve to go to the District and State Conventions as an Edwards delegate.  Our county may be an anomaly, but the Edwards delegates here all remained committed to hang on all the way to the national convention in hopes of having some clout.

It's hard to know exactly happened because I do not know the total number of delegates named at the caucuses in the county and thus do not know if the 181 total today was lower.  If that is the case, it might explain some of the Clinton erosion.  Just in terms of energy today, the Obama and Edwards people were much more fired up.  The Clinton folks appeared somewhat subdued, maybe because they recognized the numbers had flipped from January.

Don't know if you are collecting many anecdotal reports like this, but I thought you might find this little tidbit interesting.  One of the reasons caucus states are so fascinating. :-)

intp