In this this interview at the Young Turks, Jonathan Alter makes what I think is a very acute point about the health care reform legislative process, putting it into context in comparison with FDR's Social Security reforms, and civil rights reforms:

I think the big lesson here, and i've talked about this in the context of health care and social security, is that you don't always get everything you want the first time up at bat, and Roosevelt was constantly going back to Congress to strengthen the bill.  So on Social Security, which was not until he had been in office for more than two years, 1935, a lot of the New Deal types really hated Roosevelt's Social Security plan because they thought it was so weak. [...] And then later they changed it, and they changed it again, and they changed it again.  And the lesson here is that you don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good in health care. You get a bill, and you use it as a foundation to build on for the future.  You don't hold out and stamp your foot to get exactly what you want.

[...]

This is the beginning of the process.  I know that's really hard for people to understand, but what you do is -- what would be impossible is if the bill is killed.  Then, given all of the effort, people would say, "Forget about it. We're not going to deal with this for 15 more years, because we came so close, and some idiots on the left and right killed the bill.  Forget it."  If, however, it's passed, then it becomes a predicate for making improvements.  And that's the history of social legislation in this country, whether it's social security in 1935 which, as I mentioned, was fixed on several occasions, expanded and refined; civil rights began with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, it wasn't good enough, they went back and fixed it in 1964 and 65. But you have to get something through that changes the social contract, which this bill does.  [...] But you've gotta start somewhere, and this idea of the perfect being the enemy of the good, or people on the left who would rather see the bill die if it doesn't include the public option, it's folly.  It's historically terrifying to me really because you can't get social change if you can't accept something that's less than ideal.

Progressive Democrats in the Senate and House should take heed, making sure to just get reform passed initially, with an eye to strengthening its weaknesses and fixing its flaws when the opportunity to do so is more auspicious in the future.

This has been bugging me for a while now.  When TPM TV shows a commenter I hate, should I give it 5 stars or 1 star on youtube? I'm talking about stuff like the two recent videos showing Liz Cheney comments ("Liz Cheney: My Dad Never Said There Was Connection Between Saddam and 9/11", and "Liz Cheney: We Don't Live in World Where Terrorism Can Be Dealt with By Hand-Holding").  My first instinct is to vote 5 stars to thank TPM TV for capturing those comments, bringing them to light, and putting them out there for everybody to see and discuss.  But then, I feel like I'm endorsing the commenter in the process (like "Yay, 5 stars for Liz Cheney!"), which of course I don't want to do.

Anybody with a more in depth knowledge of youtube/TPM TV protocol, please advise. Thanks. :)

Just sayin'.

As with any policy decision, Obama's choice to include tax cuts for individuals and businesses can by analyzed through at least two very different lenses: One, will the policy itself be effective? In this case of course, that means will the stimulus package actually function as the impetus to reverse the current economic downturn?  And two, what will be the political ramifications of pursuing this policy? Will Obama's chances of re-election ultimately be increased or decreased?  How about his ability to effectively govern?

It's not possible to neatly separate the two questions when it comes to the stimulus package.  If we are not on our way to a tangible economic recovery two years from now, the current popularity (or lack thereof) of the stimulus package will be completely irrelevant.  Results will no doubt trump political points in the long run. 

But in the meantime, Obama has a few other items on his agenda, namely new health care and energy initiatives.  And his ability to effectively transmute those ambitious goals into legislation, especially regarding getting bills passed in the Senate, will rely heavily on his popularity and whether he's established a bond of trust with at least a small handful of Republican congresspeople.

I don't know much about economics.  I don't like the sound of business tax cuts, and Krugman's arguments against them sound spot on to me.  But in terms of purely political maneuvering, they do make some sense.  Consider this latest poll from CNN (my emphasis):

A national poll indicates that nearly six in 10 Americans support an increase in spending to pump up the economy, and there are even higher levels of support for a plan that involves tax cuts.

Fifty-eight percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Sunday say they favor increased government spending to stimulate the economy, which has been in recession for more than a year. Four in 10 of those polled oppose increased spending of taxpayer dollars.

Support for the stimulus plan jumps 13 points -- to 71 percent -- when tax cuts for individuals and businesses are added to the package, and opposition drops 12 points, to 28 percent.

"Barack Obama's plan to reach out to Republican members of Congress with a tax-cut component to his stimulus package seems to be working with the GOP rank and file," CNN polling director Keating Holland said. "Most Republicans nationwide oppose a stimulus plan that only has increased spending in it. But support for a stimulus plan with tax cuts climbs to 70 percent among Republicans."

As massive as the current stimulus package is (and as even more massive as many wish it were), the bottom line is that it is Obama's first action in recessutating the economy, but most certainly not his last.  And further attempts to advance health care, energy, environmental and education plans will have a much greater chance of success if Obama is successful right out of the gates, enjoys a solid majority support from the American people, and has legislators across the aisle who feel that he's heard their voices and are therefore willing to work with him.

Don't get me wrong.  As a matter of principle I most definitely do not think Obama should be bending over backwards to appease Republicans.  But as his first major legislative move, having 70 percent support from the American people including 70 percent support from Republicans is some very, very solid footing to start out on.

If you check the front page of politico44 right now, the leading piece is entitled "Obama's paparazzi presidency", and the story immediately following it is a very paparazzi-esque breakdown of Obama's enjoyment of golf. I just found this little irony slightly amusing, and a good in-a-nutshell snapshot of what I don't like about Politico.

Here's a screen cap in case the stories change by the time you check.

I've seen all the stories about big donors getting big transition roles, about the ethical standards the Obama transition team has established limiting donations, etc., etc.  But what do they need all that money for in the first place?

Okay, I can understand that there's staff to pay, and the cost of things like transportation, accomodations, rent and whatnot, in getting offices set up and getting people together for meetings and interviews and everything.  But it sounds like they're pulling in a ton of cash from all these donations.  And it's not as if they have the more obvious campaign expenses such as television commercials and field offices to worry about any longer.

So what the hell do they need so much money for? Youtube addresses and change.gov can't cost that much.

I'm sure most of you remember this Sean Hannity interview of Robert Gibbs after the second debate. After attempting to link Obama to Ayers right from the start (although the subject hadn't come up at all in the debate), Hannity got completely owned by Gibbs, who went directly after him for his association with the anti-Semitic nutjob he'd showcased on his show, asking, "Are you anti-Semitic?"

Just a day or two before that, Gibbs had made another appearance on Fox to take head on and dispel the "Ayers association" that the Fox Friends were trying so hard to push, and did an admirable job of dumping water on their pet firestorm.

From what I've seen, I think Gibbs is a solid choice for Obama's Press Secretary.  His manner is relaxed and friendly enough, but when lines are crossed he knows how to push back appropriately.  Right now we can only imagine the crap the far right is going to be throwing at Obama hoping that something, anything, will stick.  I feel good knowing he'll have a guy on the front lines who isn't afraid, when it's the right thing to do, to throw it right back at them.

Over at Salon, James Ross thinks that those behind Bush's torture policy will be in the mix:

So don't be surprised if some time before Inauguration Day 2009, President George W. Bush issues a blanket presidential pardon to ensure that those who organized and implemented brutal interrogation techniques such as "waterboarding" (a terrifying simulated drowning) are never hauled before the courts. A pardon would prevent future administrations from ever prosecuting those responsible for torture and other mistreatment at Guantánamo Bay and secret CIA detention facilities elsewhere overseas.

The president may well want to protect loyalists who designed or oversaw his most secretive tactics in the war on terror, and behind closed doors he may be under some pressure to do so. If in the end Bush pardons the stewards of his interrogation policies it would be a final act of injustice by a president whose legacy includes running roughshod over fundamental freedoms and undermining America's ability to promote human rights abroad.

That sounds about right to me. So who else will Bush bail out in the final days of his presidency?

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)

Over 100,000 people attended Barack Obama's speech in Denver on October 26th. It took place in Civic Center Park, between the Capitol building and the Civic Center. This video footage focuses on the crowd, while we can hear parts of Obama's speech in the background. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d2GF8LETUE

The genius of the 30 minute World Series commercial:

-The audience will be massive, and will include key demographics (white males, for one) that are essential for Obama to reach in the final stretch.

-It owns the news cycle the next day, critical in the final week before the election.

-It's not just a commercial - it's news. Key highlights will be replayed on CNN and all the other nets, and youtubes will go viral. This means that millions of people who might not particularly be fans of Obama, baseball or presidential politics in general will end up getting meaningful exposure to the commercial's pertinent messages.

-Those people live in all 50 states.  Of course, this helps in the battlegrounds, where high-priced campaign battles are already being waged (and where both teams are from). But...

-Perhaps even more importantly, this helps in states like Arizona.  That's where just yesterday a poll came out with a +/- 4 margin of error and McCain is only up 44-40, within the margin. Obama could actually be competitive there as well as some other states where he's closing the gap if more resources were channeled in.  The World Series commercial reaches those states without spending extra money in those specific localities. And also in Arizona, two House seats currently held by Republicans are in danger and the Democrats there are making serious runs for them.  Even if red states like this don't turn blue in the presidential race, an increase in Obama voters could help win congressional seats.


After hearing some people complain about Fox delaying the game 15 minutes to accomodate the commercial, I got to mulling over whether it was really a good idea.  My conclusion: Yes, it's a really good idea. Brilliant, in fact.

Now, let's just hope the Rays win at least one more game and take the series to 6 games.

I just came across this youtube video at the Veracifier channel:

The McCain Campaign may not want you to see this

Following the link there, I found the story at The UpTake:

By Sam Mayfield
If there's one thing both the McCain and Obama campaigns agree on it's that the election will be close in Florida.  The McCain campaign says it has more volunteers than the Democrats and that ultimately gives them the edge.  McCain's Central Florida Campaign Manger says ACORN and the Democrats have to rely on paid workers.

However, the McCain campaign is hiring paid workers who sometimes also call themselves volunteers.  The UpTake's Sam Mayfield talked to a few of them... and that's when one McCain campaign worker decided you shouldn't see what is going on and threatened to have her arrested.

Then a quick search turned up this article at the Washington Post:

McCain Hiring Paid Canvassers in Florida
By Alec MacGillis

Republicans worried about John McCain's prospects have wondered how his campaign has been spending its not-insignificant pile of money, given that McCain is being heavily outspent on the air in swing states and has invested far less in field offices and organizers than has Barack Obama. Well, here's one place at least some money is going: In Florida, McCain is now offering to pay people to do door-to-door canvassing for the campaign.

An e-mail went out over the weekend from the Republican Party in Hillsborough County, which encompasses the vote-rich Tampa area, inviting supporters to go door-to-door for the campaign for $12 per hour. "Work as many shifts per week as you want," it said. "No experience necessary, but a strong desire to make a difference and a strong work ethic are important. So is reliable transportation."

McCain's reliance on paid canvassers is another indication of the advantage Obama holds going into the final weeks of the campaign, thanks to his formidable ground organization.

...

Brian Lothrop, who has been hired by the Republican Party to oversee the canvassing efforts in one quadrant of Hillsborough County, said the party was seeking to hire about 30 canvassers for each of the county's four quadrants and that he'd already hired 15-20 after the e-mail went out to local Republican clubs and Young Republicans. He said it was not unusual for the party to hire canvassers in the final weeks of a campaign. The party has had volunteers doing "precinct walks" over the past few weeks to distribute campaign door hangers, he said, with nearly 20 turning out on Saturday to walk one precinct in his area.

But the campaign decided that it made more sense to pay canvassers for the task of making sure voters who want absentee ballots obtain them and send them in. That work entails four-hour shifts, instead of the two hour shifts that volunteers commit to, and closely following state rules on absentee ballots, he said. The party decided that was better entrusted to paid workers with that project.

"The compensation helps to make sure they're going to be there for a full four hour shift and able to handle the accountability measures we have, measuring the effectiveness of our effort," Lothrop said. "Those are the reasons we know that we're going to have to shift to a paid effort."

Priceless



(I'm sorry I'm not able to credit the creator of this. I got it in an e-mail).

Classic.

Recommend this if you think that Talking Points Memo should join Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens in calling upon the major news and cable news networks to stop broadcasting Palin speeches until she holds a real press conference.



Two weeks ago, Sullivan wrote:

It seems to me that in the absence of a real press conference, the networks and cable news networks should simply cease broadcasting her speeches live and demand of every Republican guest that they explain this descent into anti-democratic territory. Bush and Cheney despise the press and despise the constitutional balances that restrict their dictatorial impulses. They don't recognize the rule of law as an impediment to the exercise of their power and they don't acknowledge any democratic input, apart from a single "accountability moment" every four years. And now they want to prevent the public's ability through the press to ask the toughest questions and toughest follow-ups even during that one "accountability moment".

This is how Putin behaves. It is anti-American. It has never been tried in modern times before. It is a chilling attack on an open society and the accountability of its leaders to the people they serve. The press has a duty to stand up against it - and to care more about the process than its own precious reputation in the mouths of Hannity, Steyn, Palin and the rest of them.

Today he points to Hitchens echoing the notion:

There seems no way of putting her in a forum where these points could be raised. So, continued media coverage of her appearances is no better than lending a megaphone to a demagogue, the better to amplify her propaganda.

The MSM has completely rolled over when it comes to Palin.  She has essentially waged a war of words with them, going so far as to flat out say in the debate that she wouldn't answer their questions.  Given her complete ineptitude at handling unscripted media moments, it's almost understandable why Palin would want to stick it to the press like that.  But what's unacceptable and inexcusable is the extent to which the networks are just bending over and taking it.  Their feet should be held to the fire.  And while this sort of pressure may not ultimately result in that elusive press conference actually taking place, it could at least help to direct attention to the issue and expose Palin to the public for the fraud that she is.