There is a lot of like-think forming out there, and one of the organizing concepts seems to be this: if Obama hires someone who served in the Clinton administration, then this is de facto evidence that Obama is offering more of the same rather than the 'change we need.'

The assumption is that Obama could bring in a raft of political executives that have no experience or previous affiliations in national governance.  I think this is patently stupid.

If Obama had to hire people that thought about thing just as he does, it would be indeed impossible for him to find a sufficient number of bureaucratically competent individuals to staff the government.  Fortunately, a competent administrator needs first of all to be able to grasp, assimilate, and translate into practice policy that is articulated by Obama.  They don't have to think the same thoughts as the policy maker.  Of course, someone basically sympathetic with the principles of the policy maker is desirable so that the 'translation' process of concept to policy to action goes well, which is why Obama might find himself with an incumbent who is a good administrator, but who should be replaced because they are ideologically ill-suited to translate Obama-ese into departmental policy.  Gates at DOD is a good example -- the question is, is he ideologically 'fluent' enough in Obamaese to be able translate Obama's policy directives effectively into action.  He seems by all accounts to be a good administrator.

So, unless some Clinton-era administrator is so ideologically inflexible as to be unsympathetic to Obama's policy directives, tocharge Obama with 'more of the same' when he appoints an Clinton-era administrator is a red herring. 

For some reason, MSM seems obsessed with fishing for this red herring. 

If she can't take direction and be a team player, maybe Hillary is a bad choice.  But Holden, Daschel, Craig, Orszag -- does anyone thing these people have ideological, Clinton-era axes they'd rather grind than participate in a Democratic administration that could be transformative?

The 'Clinton Retread' argument that fascinates the MSM is just the latest and equally bogus version of 'who has he be palling around with.'

The AP has called the Alaska senate race for Begich, leading 3,274 votes with only 2,500 overseas ballots to count.   What a repulsive character, but that Alaskan Grinch won't steal this Christmas!  

Times Online reports that Palin is on the verge of a book deal worth $7million.  It's revolting that her being a famous idiot instead of just an idiot will garner her big bucks, but there's a silver lining: she'll be on record, and even if she has a ghost writer, which she certainly will, still, she's going to have to supply the 'substance', and there's plenty of opportunity for her to cause herself long-term trouble.  One can only hope that the 'cunning of reason' is at work here, and will turn apparent success into defeat.

Janis Joplin memorably spoofed Christians whose relate to God as a sugardaddy, without a trace of anything spiritual.  Sarah Palin recently did an interview with Wolf Blitzer, and in responding to a question about God's will and the election results, she explained her faith and relation to God.  She never ceases to surprise.  In her answer there was not a bit of humility about having assumed God would favor her election, nor about being a sinner and needing forgiveness, or about asking that God maker her wiser -- indeed there wasn't a trace of any sense of transcendence.  It was as if God was riding shotgun, enabling her opportunism: "God, don't let me miss that open door, and even if it's only cracked, I can barge right through there."  

I'm glad I don't believe in God, if Palin's God is what it's all about.

I had only a confused familiarity with the name 'Studs Terkel' when I moved to Chicago 25 years ago, but through his radio program, writings, and other events (chili competitions!), I was soon to learn what a pleasure and treasure to American life and letters.  He was one of the great listeners, oberservers, and had a gritty, honest knack for putting his experience into words. Literature in corderoy, he seemed.  And what a Mensch!  He was out and about a lot, and it wasn't hard, especially if you wanted to, to meet him. He seemed to have all the time in the world, to listen, banter, laugh.  An American gem.

Thanks, Studs, for being so great!

Lieberman will have four more years until he comes up for re-election.  Having alienated Democrats statewide, he knows that his reelection is precarious -- he might not even win the nomination of his own "Lieberman" party in CT.  The Democrats should dump him and let him know that if he wants to have any leadership place in the party, perhaps in his last two years in the Senate, he needs to show his bona fides by voting like a real Democrat.  An ostracized Lieberman could actually be a more reliable ally than one that is coddled.

McCain tried to dawn the popular mantle of change by pointing out what a maverick he's been; as is the wont of Republicans, he's run on being a different sort of personality rather than bringing substantively different policies or governing philosophy to Washington (what change after earmarks are banished?).  For Obama, it's always been about the substantive change in policy and, even more, in philosophy.  McCain's gambit seemed to be getting a little traction in September, and then the economelt happened, and although it brought forward an issue (the economy) that favors Democrats, I think the really devastating effect of this world-event is to introduce a scale of concern that made the 'maverick individual' seem puny and petty.  Yes, a maverick can 'shake things up,' but shaking things usually leads to a reorganization of the status quo rather than introduce real difference and change.

This difference of scale can also be seen in the way that McCain and Obama have campaigned.  McCain has lurched from one-liner to one-liner, a campaign of genuinely small-minded tactics.  Obama begins today what he calls his closing argument -- imagine, a politics of  arguments! -- which shows that what tactics he's employed have been part of an overarching strategy. 

In the end, McCain looks like the dwarf and Obama the giant.  It's becoming clear to more and more people which figure and give us the change we need.  I predict an landslide -- 350 electoral votes.
  

So, the 'lacking experience' attack not having worked, McCain wants to make the case that Obama has bad judgment.  He lights upon Ayers as a case in point. He makes the case, and makes it again and again.  By not being able to cite other examples of bad judgment and show a pattern -- and the this goes also for the subliminal connection to 'terrorist' -- what McCain has done is use up the effective power of the example.  He did the same thing with "I'm a POW."  Even worse for McCain, people begin to wonder that if Ayers is the only case of bad judgment, then there probably isn't so much to the Ayers case, and Obama must have pretty good judgment after all.

It's hard to say who will be swayed by Powell's endorsement of Obama.  One of possible 'October Surprises' has been a possible terrorist attack, which most people feel would to McCain's advantage because of his military experience.  But I think Powell's endorsement, coming from the best known, highest ranking, and trusted (despite the WMD debacle!) may have immunized Obama against concerns about his ability to respond to a military emergency.  

I think it may be best if everybody stand back, give McCain's substanceless campaign plenty of room, and watch it implode.  Perhaps the only thing keeping it afloat is the energy the media is pumping into it.

There has been a significant swing in favor of Obama in the last few days.  As I listened to Obama and McCain each give their speeches advocating passage of the $700 billion 'rescue,' this occurred to be: Obama presented it as a very pragmatic matter, that no matter what the bad reasons for the situation, the pragmatic thing to do was to support the bail out. 

McCain also advocated supporting the proposal.  He, too, acknowledged the obvious distasteful aspect nature of the situation and of having to pass such a bill, but he cast it in heroic terms, that we must put country first.

If you're getting screwed -- and we're all getting screwed -- and there is a proposed remedy that is noxious, would you be more inclined to support that remedy because it is needed and will work, or because your country needs it?  I think McCain's dive in the polls is accelerated by this hollow 'country first' theme which he's worked to death (to the point of parody).

[
Afterthought: 'Country First' is most compelling when the goal and strategy are indisputably noble and good.  Cleaning up someone else when they crap their pants doesn't exactly fall into the 'noble and good,' regardless of the sacrifice.]

As everyone knows, Florida has a large elderly population, and the tendency to identify with McCain, an elderly man, is strong.

Health (not just health care) and mortality are very, very big issues for the elderly: if you're 65, chances are you personally know someone who has died of a disease, and you know it can claim you in short order.  Death and heirs are not the relatively abstract things they are for much younger people, but are rather imminent.

If Palin comes off looking plausible, elderly McCain supporters and undecideds may continue to feel comfortable supporting him.  But if Palin ends up looking like someone who one couldn't imagine being president, then, especially given McCain well-known bouts with cancer, one should look for a greater-than-national-average shift away from McCain toward Obama as the elderly contemplate much more seriously than most others the meaning of a Palin presidency.

In an age driven by identity politics, who does Palin appeal to beyond two obvious groups, namely, social conservatives and that small group of Hillary supporters who cares more about a woman being in office than what she thinks?

What about undecided voters?  Undecided voters are euphemistically referred to as 'low-information' voters, voter's that Pollster.com speculates are also low-education voters.  These people could well look at Sarah Palin and find in her someone like them who even gives them some compelling 'lottery hope,' that 'You never know' (the motto of the New York State Lottery), things can turn out fabulous.

Usually when one hears of a candidate suspending their campaign, it is during the primaries, and it means they have not abandoned politics, but are in a holding pattern until the convention.  We saw this play out with Hillary and all the others. Such a suspension is a strategic move in politics, and it is not intended to bring a halt to the political process.

What McCain did in 'suspending his campaign' is something quite different, especially if we take him at his word, rather than characterizing his 'suspension' as a wily political gambit.  McCain said he was suspending his campaign, but advocating that Obama should do the same, which means he presented it not as a political strategy, but as the indeterminate end of the political process.  He did this saying that the welfare of the nation called for him to do this.

If we are to believe him, the difference between a typical candidate's campaign 'suspension' and McCain's is this: McCain was attempting treason.  The political process -- however ugly, mud-slinging and ignoble it may be -- is a process at the very core of democracy without which democratic elections become a sham.  You can take the high road or low road, but to say that circumstances require all roads be abandoned, as McCain's suspension proposes, is to use circumstance to undermine democracy itself.  And that is treason, not 'petty treason' like Benedict Arnold, but structural treason against the foundation of our polis.

Is McCain a traitor?  He is if we take him to be sincere, yes.  But, of course we all know that he's utterly disingenuous in his 'high-minded' appeal to country before campaign.  So, in a sort of 'inversion of the world,' as McCain casts himself higher into the stratosphere of self-congratulatory civic-mindedness, we know, in fact, that he's debasing himself as only a desperate and bottom-feeding politico can.

Josh Marshall asks who does McCain need around him to make him feel comfortable enough to go.  Two thoughts.  McCain's affection runs deep for Lieberman; I think he thinks of him, even treats him like a 'wing man.'  He's certainly served McCain in that way.

You not only need people around you that give you a comfort zone, but you also need people not there that make you anxious.  I think that Palin actually makes McCain nervous.  He know who she really is, how dangerous she can be (hence keeping her under wraps and away from the debates).  This is especially the case on foreign policy.  As an attendee of the debates, rather than the main act, it is especially unpredictable and precarious, as run ins with reporters is a distinct possibility for Palin.  So, I think if he goes to the debate, he'll have Sarah off doing something appropriately insignificant.