November 2008 Archives

11/25: Judging Obama By The Company He Keeps

Liberal bloggers continue to discuss the apparent lack of progressives in Pres.-elect Barack Obama's cabinet. Chris Bowers is concerned about the policy implications of Obama's picks, as he thinks it's unlikely that Obama "has hired a bunch of centrists not to take their advice seriously in any way, but instead to make them institute a progressive agenda which he has already decided upon." Other liberal bloggers are holding their fire, as they don't believe that Obama's policies will necessarily reflect the ideological composition of his cabinet. Markos Moulitsas writes: "I still can't bring myself to care too much about individual Obama cabinet picks. He will be judged by his actions, not who enacts his agenda."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are surprised and pleased by many of Obama's appointments thus far. Hugh Hewitt and Larry Kudlow -- both of whom fiercely criticized Obama during the presidential campaign -- are praising the Pres.-elect's economic team. Philip Klein thinks Obama's appointments shed light on the type of President he'll be:

"I spent the election doing a lot of speculating over whether Obama would merely be a center-left president in the [Bill] Clinton mold -- i.e., one who enjoys short-term political success while failing to seriously advance liberalism -- or whether he would actually be a transformational liberal leader who creates enduring big government institutions a la FDR and LBJ. Having been able to take a look at some of his early appoint[ments], right now, it's looking more and more like the Clinton model."

OBAMA: How Much Do His Appointees Matter?

Open Left's Bowers is frustrated by the lack of progressives in Obama's cabinet: "Obama's current cabinet picks, or his rumored to be leading choices, are almost entirely Republicans or DLC 'New' Democrats. To put my complaint more succinctly, it is a centrist cabinet lacking any clear progressives. While there are at least three examples of progressives scoring senior staff positions within the White House, the same cannot be said, as of this writing, of the cabinet picks. If this really is going to be an administration that listens to diverse voices, we need representation in both areas. Right now, progressives are not represented in the new cabinet."

Like Matthew Yglesias and Jane Hamsher, Daily Kos' Moulitsas is more concerned with the policies that Obama implements than the composition of his cabinet: "I still can't bring myself to care too much about individual Obama cabinet picks. He will be judged by his actions, not who enacts his agenda."

digby offers her thoughts: "There's a lot of chatter in the blogosphere about Obama not picking enough progressives for his cabinet. [...] I tend to see this in a couple of ways. First, as I said, I think Obama was pretty clear during the campaign that he was not an ideologue but rather a pragmatic technocrat. [...] If it were normal times, we might expect him to fulfill the Village's 'center-right' domestic dreams based upon where the center of political gravity has been these last few years. But these are not normal times and conservative economics are completely inoperative in a severe economic crisis. So, he's likely to be more liberal in that area than any of us ever dreamed he'd be, as will all of his neo liberal economic advisors. There is just no other choice available than massive government intervention, which is a fundamentally liberal concept. The only question is if they will be competent at carrying out liberal economic policies, or if they will persist in the current program of badly structured bailouts of badly run companies."

digby continues: "On foreign policy Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq, escalating in Afghanistan and setting the world's mind at ease that the United States is no longer a rogue superpower, and I have no reason to believe that's not going to be the way it goes. I would worry a lot about the military -- they tend to give youthful Democrats a hard time -- but as with the economy, the military is falling apart too, so they may have limited choices there as well. We'll see. The world is in crisis on all fronts and it was conservative philosophy and policies that brought us here. They have nothing to offer but more crisis, so by default liberalism is on the rise. What lucky duckies we all are."

OBAMA II: Praise From The Right

Several conservative bloggers are praising Obama's economic team:

• NRO's Kudlow: "[ex-Treasury Sec. Larry] Summers, [NY Fed Bank Pres. Timothy] Geithner, and [Berkeley econ Prof. Christina] Romer will all recommend no tax hikes in a recession. Maybe for Keynesian reasons; maybe a nod to supply-siders. Obama talked about a liberal-conservative consensus. But what's especially encouraging is the appointment of Ms. Romer, who easily could serve as CEA head in a Republican administration (just like Geithner could have been [John] McCain's Treasury man). [...] In fact, there is no question that Obama's economic team is right of center. All three are market-oriented. They're also pro-free-trade. Hopefully Summers and Geithner maintain the Robert Rubin King Dollar policy of the Clinton years. And if Ms. Romer can stop tax hikes, that will help the greenback even more."
• Townhall's Hewitt: "The economics side of Team Obama is impressive, and the GOP should be worried that the president-elect intends to talk left and govern right. They should be really, really worried if the senior members of the team start appearing on new media, confident of their views and eager to engage. (No sign of that to date.) The GOP is convinced the Dems will overreach, and it will probably come in the area of cap-and-trade, card-check, plaintiffs' bar gifts etc, crippling the economic growth that the incoming free-marketeers endorse. Watch for the first clash of the punish-the-rich lefties and the folks who actually know how the markets work."

Conservative bloggers are also pleased that Obama adviser David Axelrod said that Obama may delay his pledge to repeal Bush's tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 a year, and may instead "allow those cuts to expire in 2010":

• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "If accurate, this is fabulous news for several reasons. For starters, it means Obama will be avoiding the bad decision of taking money out of taxpayers' pockets at the exact moment the U.S. economy needs it the most. Second, if you're going to raise taxes, you want to do it far away from Election Day as possible. Obama and the Democrats, politically, would be best off raising taxes as early as possible. Congressional Republicans can, even from the minority, spend much of the summer and fall of 2010 loudly arguing in favor of extending the tax cuts -- in what will be, at best, an economy that just emerged from a recession, or an economy still sluggishly plodding or worse."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Holding off on a pledge to 'soak the rich' makes good sense. What's most noteworthy (aside from the breaking of another left-pleasing campaign promise) is the implicit concession that underlies it: That tax increases (yes, even those on 'the rich') only stifle economic growth -- thereby reducing the number of jobs that can be created and the amount of money circulating in private enterprise (thereby helping more people earn better livings). And that hurts everyone, 'rich' and poor alike. By making the right decision -- delaying the implementation of his tax increases -- President-elect Obama has essentially admitted that tax increases are bad for the economy. So why would you ever raise them?"

AmSpec Blog's Klein is relieved: "I spent the election doing a lot of speculating over whether Obama would merely be a center-left president in the Clinton mold -- i.e., one who enjoys short-term political success while failing to seriously advance liberalism -- or whether he would actually be a transformational liberal leader who creates enduring big government institutions a la FDR and LBJ. Having been able to take a look at some of his early appoint[ments], right now, it's looking more and more like the Clinton model. As Jim [Antle] noted, there is already growling among the left because Obama has steered clear of radical progressive appointments thus far. Also, while what we know of the economic stimulus package thus far should be disconcerting to conservatives -- a $500-$700 billion price tag, plenty of room for pork in infastructure and environmental handouts -- none of it seems to be creating any lasting institutions that will be with us when the economy recovers, and/or irreversible during any future conservative administration. Obama also left open the possibliity that he wouldn't raise taxes on those making over $250,000 until the tax cuts are set to expire in 2011."

BARNES: Finally, A Progressive Appointment!

While many liberal bloggers remain upset about the lack of progressives in Obama's cabinet, they were pleased to learn that Obama has appointed Melody Barnes -- a former Executive VP at the Center for American Progress -- to serve as Director of the Domestic Policy Council for his administration:

• Yglesias: "This hasn't been a very high-profile role under the Bush administration since [George W.] Bush doesn't really believe in domestic policy aside from tax cuts, but for an administration that's trying to play a constructive role in American life it's a very important job. [...] Barnes has some of the liberal credentials that people have seen lacking in some other Obama appointments. She served as Chief Counsel to [MA Sen.] Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2003, was CAP's Executive Vice President for Policy, and then left to join Obama's campaign as policy director."
• Al Giordano: "The most interesting news out of the press conference just concluded by President-elect Obama was the appointment of an unabashed progressive, Melody Barnes, to head the Domestic Policy Council. [...] Want to get an idea of how progressive she is? Read this: In January of 2007, prior to President Bush's state of the union address, Barnes wrote this essay for the Washington Post, What a Progressive President Might Say."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Yes, there have been some announcements and appointments that haven't exactly been music to a progressive's ears. But worth it to note when Obama appoints a true progressive to a significant position of power. Certainly easier than concocting one of those 'secret progressive' theories. Actual progressives are better."
• Ezra Klein: "Barnes has been one of the chief architects of CAP's domestic policy program, and in that, she's created a formidable and decidedly impressive organization. Most everyone I know who has worked with her says great things. She also worked for Kennedy for some time, so the politics trend in a clearly progressive direction. On the other hand, Barnes was also one of Obama's top domestic policy advisers, and I didn't think that the campaign, particularly in the primaries, had a terribly sound domestic policy operation. Still, probably a good choice."

Bowers still has concerns: "There are three senior White House staff in the progressive mold. While it is a decent progressive start to filling out the White House senior staff, one question that remains to be seen is if these senior staff appointments really are the equivalent, in terms of power, to the cabinet appointments that so far have unanimously gone to centrists. I have heard from sources that I trust that this absolutely is the case, but the lack of progressivism within the cabinet leaves me feeling wary. It seems important to me to have progressive voices in both areas, given that with Rahm Emanuel and Lawrence Summers, it is hardly the case that White House senior staff will be dominated by progressives. Minority representation in the White House senior staff, and no representation in the various cabinet departments, is simply not adequate. It's not a total shutout, but it isn't enough."

RNC CHAIR: The State Of The Race

Conservative bloggers are discussing the various candidates seeking the RNC chairmanship:

RedState's Erick Erickson urges the RNC not to engage in tokenism: "I hear that Ken Blackwell, the former Secretary of State of Ohio, is seriously considering throwing his hat into the ring for RNC Chairman against [ex-MD LG] Michael Steele. Blackwell is active in the NRA, the National Taxpayers Union, and also is a big Club for Growth fan. Some of the people I talked to this morning said that Blackwell, like Steele, is a fresh face for the GOP, but unlike Steele conservatives tell me they know where Blackwell stands on issues. Now all we need is [ex-OK Rep.] J.C. Watts to throw his hat in the ring if we're just out looking for an African-American to go up against Obama instead of looking for the most qualified guy. Republicans should not be engaged in this level of 'me-too-ism' that most people find disingenuous anyway."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Matt Lewis argues that Steele isn't the outsider whom he pretends to be: "Steele has positioned himself as an outsider who wants to shake things up at the RNC. However, the fact that his campaign is being run by the same people who have been running things for years now, seems to undermine his 'change'/reform message (this is sort of like Barack Obama selling 'change' and then hiring Rahm Emanuel -- a consummate insider) [...] A new chairman who surrounds himself with staffers and consultants who are invested in the conventional wisdom of the past -- will likely fail to revolutionize anything."

In a separate post, Lewis critiques the other rumored candidates:

• "Mike Duncan: (Current RNC Chair) -- Regardless of how good he is, I cannot fathom why anyone would want to stick with a Bush loyalist who ran the RNC these last several years. It just defies logic. [...]
• Saul Anuzis: (MI Chair) -- Anuzis is well-connected in the conservative movement. However, during his tenure, Michigan has gone more and more Democratic. Of course, this is hardly his fault. Still, I cannot see why you would send a manager to the big leagues who hasn't turned around his minor league team.
• Chip Saltsman: (Fmr. [Mike] Huckabee campaign manager) -- [...] I have heard that just prior to Huckabee's dropping out of the presidential race, the Washington Times killed a story about how Huckabee was staying in the campaign in order to help provide income for Saltsman's consulting firm. While this is surely a rumor, it may again surface if he becomes a serious contender for this chairmanship..
• Katon Dawson: (SC Chair) -- Granted, South Carolina is already a conservative state, but Dawson has been very successful there. Dawson also seems to be a competent, shrewd, and tough pol (South Carolina is famous for this) -- something we desperately need in our leaders these days. On the downside, I've heard from several Republicans who are worried about electing a white southerner -- with a southern accent -- to go head-to-head against the first African American president..."

DE SEN: Who The Heck Is That?

Liberal bloggers are critical of DE Gov. Ruth Ann Minner's decision to appoint VP-elect Joe Biden's former CoS Ted Kaufman to fill Biden's Senate seat until a 2010 special election:

• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "I am not much of a fan of this decision. Kaufman may well make for a perfectly competent senator -- as a former chief of staff, he'll probably know his way around the Hill better than half the people who actually hold office there. And I don't have a problem in general with the idea of appointing a placeholder, as I've advocated that [Gov.] Rod Blagojevich should do in Illinois. But I think there ought to be some minimum threshold of public stature for a senate appointee -- preferably an elected official like [DE Sec/State Harriet Smith] Windsor or for that matter Minner herself, particularly when the appointment is made by an outgoing, retiring governor who is no longer accountable to public opinion. Kaufman, who did not even have a Wikipedia page until two weeks ago, does not really meet that threshold."
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "Clearly this was something Biden worked out for himself. Kaufman's obviously a key guy for Biden, so they must have an understanding. [...] But typically, I think, you want to try to avoid the 'who?' question when you're appointing people to the Senate. Just a thought."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "So who is this guy, other than a Biden ally? There doesn't seem to be much to go on other than that being a Biden ally is probably the most important thing there is to know about him."
• Delaware Liberal's Jason330: "There are 2 ways to look at this Ted Kaufman thing: (1) You can say that Ted Kaufman is qualified to serve two years in the Senate, that he will (like LBJ) serve out his predecessor's term in honor of the man whose shoe (he will state) he has no hopes of filling. And you can say that with this pick Ruth Ann Minner has done the right thing in not installing a Senator, but is allowing the voters to choose in two years. (2.) You can say that the above rationalization is is transparent bullshit and that Joe Biden has now rigged the seat for Beau Biden. Unless you are a child you know which one is correct and which one is spin..."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Getting Out Of Iraq

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"In a rare harmonic convergence, the Hillary-to-State news has Daniel Larison and Michael Goldfarb arguing along similar lines, joining the chorus of voices who see Obama's likely national-security appointments as a blow to those who hoped for a real progressive turn in foreign policy. Having basically made this argument myself, let me offer one thought by way of counterpoint -- namely, that foreign policy is one arena where progressives might (might!) end up being well-served by having their agenda implemented by other people.

By 'their agenda' I mean specifically the withdrawal from Iraq, which Chris Hayes, the world's smartest progressive, has long insisted is the one issue where Obama absolutely has to deliver for the left if he doesn't want to provoke a full-scale progressive revolt. As Iraq has grown more stable and the rest of the world more chaotic, it's become easy to lose sight of just how difficult disentangling ourselves from our Mesopotamian occupation may turn out to be. [...] It's very easy to imagine a scenario in which the withdrawal from Iraq ends up dominating the foreign-affairs side of the ledger in Obama's first term, and not necessarily in a good way. And by putting the job in the hands of [Def. Sec.] Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton -- a Republican appointee and a primary-season rival who attacked him from the right on foreign policy -- Obama has effectively given realists and liberal hawks partial ownership of whatever happens in Iraq between now and 2011. In a best-case scenario for progressives, Gates and Clinton will play the role [ex-Sec/State] Colin Powell played in the run-up to the Iraq War (except with a better final outcome, obviously): Their association with the policy will help keep non-progressives on board when things get dicey, and then once the job is done they'll be pushed aside and someone like Susan Rice will take over Obama's post-occupation foreign policy."

LEST WE FORGET: 26-Year-Old To See Every Asshole He Ever Went To High School With On Night Before Thanksgiving

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- For the fifth straight year, Jordan McCabe will return home for the holidays and spend the night before Thanksgiving running into every smug and unlikable asshole he ever went to high school with, the 26-year-old reported Monday.

The trip back home, scheduled for later this week, will reportedly bring McCabe face-to-face with an endless string of pricks from his past, each of whom he will have to engage in awkward conversation, and generally pretend to be happy about seeing again. [...]

Though he will initially intend to stay at home with his parents, grandparents, and other relatives, McCabe told reporters that after spending approximately five hours in their company, he will grow antsy, borrow his father's car, and drive to nearby Marleybone Pub. There, McCabe expects to bump into at least five insufferable assholes in the first three minutes."

11/24: What Kind Of Change Is This?

Last Thursday we noted that most of Pres.-elect Barack Obama's rumored cabinet picks (with the exception of Larry Summers) had met little resistance from the netroots. However, it appears that our observation was premature. Several lefty bloggers have grown increasingly frustrated by what they perceive to be the lack of progressives in Obama's cabinet. Chris Bowers complains:

"I know everyone is obsessed with the 'team of rivals' idea right now, but I feel incredibly frustrated. Even after two landslide elections in a row, are our only governing options as a nation either all right-wing Republicans, or a centrist mixture of Democrats and Republicans?"

The netroots are particularly concerned about the people whom Obama wants to conduct his foreign policy. Many liberal bloggers remain wary of NY Sen. Hillary Clinton's hawkishness, and they're particularly concerned about the types of people whom she will choose to staff the State Dep't. Lefty bloggers are also less than thrilled about reports that Obama wants to keep Robert Gates as his Def. Sec. and appoint ex-Gen. James Jones as his Nat'l Security Adviser.

Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are surprised and pleased by Obama's cabinet picks thus far. Michael Goldfarb notes that "there is not a progressive in sight" on Obama's nat'l security team, while Ed Morrissey declares, "I'll take Brent Scowcroft any day of the week over the [Jimmy] Carter/[Zbigniew] Brzezinski model." Jennifer Rubin writes:

"Little did we know that 'Change we can believe in' really meant 'Change that will delight the Right and freak out the Left.' But if the rumors and hints about President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet picks are any clue, it may be that both conservatives and liberals had Barack Obama pegged wrong."

OBAMA: Where Are All The Progressives?

Several liberal bloggers are frustrated by what they perceive to be the lack of progressives in Obama's cabinet:

• Open Left's Bowers: "Let's say that all of the leading contenders for Obama's national security team end up in his administration. This would give him a core foreign policy team of [VP-elect] Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, [AZ Gov.] Janet Napolitano, Jim Jones, and Robert Gates. That is, overall, a center-right foreign policy team lacking any clear progressives (at least, foreign policy and national security progressives). All of them, with the possible exception of Jones, supported the Iraq war from the outset. At least two of them, Gates and Napolitano, opposed withdrawing troops as recently as 2007 (although the new agreement with Iraq has rendered that debate moot). [...] I know everyone is obsessed with the 'team of rivals' idea right now, but I feel incredibly frustrated. Even after two landslide elections in a row, are our only governing options as a nation either all right-wing Republicans, or a centrist mixture of Democrats and Republicans? Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration? Also, why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left? It seems to me as though there is a team of rivals, except for the left, which is left off the team entirely."
• The Nation's Christopher Hayes: "Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one. Remember this is the movement that was right about Iraq, right about wage stagnation and inequality, right about financial deregulation, right about global warming and right about health care. And I don't just mean in that in a sectarian way. I mean to say that the emerging establishment consensus on all of these issues came from the left. [...] And yet, no one who comes from the part of American political and intellectual life that has given birth to all of these ideas is anywhere to be found within miles of the Obama cabinet thus far. WTF?"
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Obama never pretended to be some kind of Noam Chomsky acolyte. He's a mainstream liberal American president. Still -- and keep in mind that I'm speaking as someone who's only modestly left of center on foreign affairs -- this is a disturbingly hawkish team taken as a whole, isn't it? I get the whole 'water's edge' thing, as well as Obama's desire to bring back some kind of consensus in the national security arena, but it would be nice to see at least one or two really serious progressives getting some high profile national security positions that have the president's ear, wouldn't it? I mean, that is why most of us voted for him, right?"

OBAMA II: What Did You Expect, People?

Other liberal bloggers are arguing that the apparent lack of progressives in Obama's cabinet shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone:

• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Look, for people who convinced themselves that Obama was the second coming of Saul Alinsky -- wake up. He never was. He may, however, be the most progressive person we could have possibly hoped to elect as President of the United States. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to help keep the obstructionists off his back and push him to fulfill his campaign promises to end the war, pass health care legislation and the Employee Free Choice Act, clean up the environment, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, repair our infrastructure, create good jobs and restore the middle class. That's what he promised us, and while I'm obviously not wild about the dearth of progressives in his administration (while anti-choicers like [NE Sen. Chuck] Hagel and [IN Sen. Richard] Lugar are evidently a-okay), I'm less concerned with who he chooses to implement his policies than with his ability to ultimately do so."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Barack Obama is a centrist, establishment politician. That is what he has been since he's been in the Senate, and more importantly, it's what he made clear -- both explicitly and through his actions -- that he intended to be as President. Even in the primary, he paid no price whatsoever for that in terms of progressive support. As is true for the national Democratic Party generally, he has no good reason to believe he needs to accommodate liberal objections to what he is doing. The Joe Lieberman fiasco should have made that as conclusively clear as it gets."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "My expecations of Obama are pretty much just what he is delivering. If Clinton had been the nominee, she would have chosen Obama as her VP, and we'd probably be seeing Biden as the SoS choice. Despite campaign projection from a lot of progressives that Obama was different in regards to foreign policy, these are centrist Democrats on such matters that are going to be in the White House. Anyone that didn't realize that was deceiving themselves."

Like Hamsher, Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias doesn't care if Obama doesn't appoint many liberals as long as he follows through on his campaign promises: "Honestly, I'd like to see some more hard-core liberals in the cabinet -- and maybe we'll get 'em at Energy, Interior, etc. But in some respects this is the genius of picking a relatively moderate cabinet. We've got [IL Rep.] Rahm Emannuel promising to 'throw long and deep' on health care and energy, [ex-SD Sen.] Tom Daschle spearheading the charge for universal health care, the president-elect talking about hundreds of billions in new stimulus spending, and endless reiteration of the idea that there will be no retreat from the campaign's ambitious goals on carbon curbs. Putting reassuring faces on an agenda of ambitious policy change strikes me as dramatically preferable to appointing a lot of liberals whose job is to sell the progressive base on the need to trim and abandon campaign commitments."

BooMan agrees: "Obama's agenda is farther to the left than anything we've seen since at least Lyndon Johnson, and Congress has never in its history seen a Democratic Party so united in its leftward tilt. It doesn't matter whether Obama has centrists and moderate Republicans as part of his coalition. What matters is if he can unite (enough of) this country behind a common purpose to get things done."

OBAMA III: He's Not As Bad As We Thought

Conservative bloggers are less critical of Obama's cabinet picks (particularly in the foreign policy realm) than they expected to be:

• The Weekly Standard's Goldfarb: "It will be some time before we know the full extent of Obama's ambitions on domestic policy, but progressives are sure to feature prominently in any debate over health care, energy, banking, etc. In the realm of foreign policy, however, progressives seem already to have been marginalized, or dismissed entirely. Barack Obama's national security team is beginning to take shape and there is not a progressive in sight. [...] What is clear is that the split between realists and neoconservatives has been resolved, for the time being, in favor of the realists, whose titular leader, Colin Powell, endorsed Obama at the end of the campaign. [...] But the real losers here seem to be progressives. If progressives can't get their foot in the door on national security in an Obama administration, it's difficult to imagine precisely what conditions would bring them to power, since we are unlikely to see a more liberal president for decades."
• Hot Air's Morrissey: "When Barack Obama ran for president, especially in the primaries, he relied on a group of foreign-policy advisers that included radical leftist thinkers like Robert Malley, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power. The rise of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State gave political watchers the first indication that Obama would not follow that direction after winning office by gaining the trust of the Left. [...] I'm not particularly enamored of [Brent] Scowcroft's foreign policy. [...] However, I see Scowcroft as a huge improvement over Susan Rice, Robert Malley, and Samantha Power."
• Commentary's Rubin: "Little did we know that 'Change we can believe in' really meant 'Change that will delight the Right and freak out the Left.' But if the rumors and hints about President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet picks are any clue, it may be that both conservatives and liberals had Barack Obama pegged wrong. If several months ago someone had said that the Obama administration would be chocked full of Clinton administration retreads and have a national security team featuring the woman who advocated bombing Iran to smithereens in the event it launched a nuclear attack on Israel, few would have believed it. But that's what seems to be in the offing."

CLINTON: Hooray For A Team Of Rivals!

Several liberal bloggers are supportive of Clinton serving as Obama's Sec/State:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "While there is a sense that Clinton is more hawkish than Barack Obama, that she is to the right of him on some foreign policy issues, I agree with Jerome [Armstrong] that the differences during the primaries were overstated by both sides to make electoral cases. More to the point, though, the Israel-Palestine situation is one in which Clinton, like her husband, could try to stake her legacy. Indeed, if she were able to move the process significantly forward, thus improving not only the situation in the immediate area but also throughout the region, not only would she be able to cement her own place in history she would also be able to fulfill the effort upon which her husband hoped to stake his term in office."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I've been open about my support for President-elect Obama's selection of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state but that's not to say I don't see the downsides. There have been some compelling arguments against the pick but after reading up on the various pros and cons, I've come to the conclusion that, in fact, it will prove to be an excellent decision on Barack Obama's part. How do I know? Well, cuz [David Broder and Thomas Friedman] think it's a horrible decision. [...] What else can I conclude from their opposition to the pick than the extreme likelihood that Hillary Clinton's stint as secretary of state is going to be a very successful one? I mean, when was the last time these guys were right about anything?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, a fierce critic of Clinton, also likes the choice: "I do think that the Clinton appointment will utlimately come down to the Israel-Palestine question. And Clinton enables Obama to overcome unnecessary resistance and paranoia from the Israeli right. She credentializes him with Israelis and American Jews -- which will help build support for a sustainable compromise before it is too late for the Jewish state. I remain a fan of the pick..."

CLINTON II: Still Not Sure About This...

Other liberal bloggers remain wary of Clinton's foreign policy views, which they believe to be more hawkish than Obama's:

• Yglesias: "This idea that a relatively small disagreement about diplomacy with Iran was their only disagreement during the primaries is widespread, but strikes me as something of a mutually convenient myth. [...] They had a related, and more clear-cut, disagreement about Cuba policy with Obama indicating a desire to soften the hard line that prevailed through the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations while Clinton indicated a desire to stick with the status quo. Obama wholeheartedly embraced the Shultz/Perry/Kissinger/Nunn nuclear disarmament agenda while Clinton was more equivocal. Obama implicitly criticized the Clinton administration for waiting until its waning days to really buckle down on the Arab-Israeli conflict. They disagreed about whether the US should join the international treaty to ban cluster bombs. None of it is earth-shattering stuff, but there was a consistent trajectory to these disagreements, and Obama was on the right side of them. People who supported Obama in the primary -- or who voted for the Democratic candidate in November -- are going to be looking for assurance that adding Clinton to his team, or having a Republican run the Pentagon, doesn't indicate a desire to move away from the course he outlined."
• Ezra Klein: "People have been thinking about this cabinet appointment too much on the level of symbolism. But this is a real job with real responsibilities. And one of those responsibilities is stocking, and managing, the government's foreign policy apparatus. Which is why I continue to consider this a basically weird choice. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did not have many policy disagreements during the primary. Most of their disagreements, including the fight over health care mandates, were minor. They were technical fights or political disputes rather than collisions of principle. The exception was foreign policy. Iraq was a real disagreement on the level of principle. The heated argument over negotiations with autocrats was similarly fundamental."

Several liberal bloggers are also concerned about the people whom Clinton will choose to staff the State Dep't:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Clinton, assuming she gets the job, would bring more than her own considerable skills and background to the State Department; she would also be responsible for hiring officials to fill key posts throughout Foggy Bottom. [...] And that, to my mind, is the most credible cause for some concern with Clinton's nomination. As a presidential candidate, Clinton surrounded herself with some capable people, but they and their vision was largely out of step with Obama's more progressive approach to foreign policy and diplomacy. And it would likely be they, not career officials who backed Obama, who Clinton would bring on to do most of the heavy lifting at the cabinet agency."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Here's another thing that's got some people worried about Secretary of State Hillary: Would she bring her old-guard foreign policy adviser types with her to the State Department, a cadre who are in some ways out of step with the more progressive crew that steered the foreign policy of the Obama campaign? [...] The question is whether Hillary people at State will muddle what is arguably Obama's overarching foreign policy ambition: Fundamental change in the way national security is discussed in this country and a true and enduring transformation of our own views of what constitutes just and practical uses of our military power abroad."

GEITHNER: A Mixed Reaction From The Netroots

Several liberal bloggers are critical of Obama's decision to tap NY Fed Bank Pres. Timothy Geithner as his Treasury Sec.:

• Firedoglake's Hugh: "Like so many others in positions of power and trust, Geithner was eminently well placed to see the developing crisis and avoid or mitigate its worst effects. He should have known, but he didn't. His view was much more conventional. He saw no shocks that the financial system couldn't handle. He could not have been more wrong, but this is the guy that Obama wants for his Treasury Secretary."
• Bowers: "Really? Obama is going with someone who is currently executing the bailout? While Geithner isn't Larry Summers, that still strikes me as less than change-y. Policy by Dow people seem to like it, but such metrics have proven their worthlessness in the recent past, as the stock market continues to tumble several weeks after the Wall Street bailout was signed into law."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Geitner is embroiled in the last twenty years of monetary mismanagement without the tarnish of being in the private sector (and thus profiting from it). He helped construct the bailout and he was part of the decision to let Lehman fail, [Treasury Sec. Henry] Paulson and/or [Fed Chair Ben] Bernanke's single worst decision so far. I'm slightly more positive towards Geithner since he's younger and more technocratic than ideologically oriented, but not that much."

Other liberal bloggers view Geithner a bit more favorably:

• Yglesias: "Geithner seems like a win-win -- better-regarded by liberals than Larry Summers, but about equally well-regarded by centrists."
• Klein: "[Geithner]'s been heavily on the side of the interventionists -- word was that he opposed Paulson's catastrophic decision to let Lehman Brothers fail -- and he understand the crisis better than virtually anyone else in the country."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "It's a reasonable pick, far better than Larry Summers would have been. [...] As with all Obama's picks so far this isn't an inspired pick, but it's decent..."

Conservative blogger John Hinderaker also likes the choice: "[This is] an excellent appointment. The stock market jumped 5 percent on the news. That's terrific, but it also makes you wonder: given that response to Geithner's nomination, how credible is the Obama camp's insistence that the 20 percent drop we've seen since his election has nothing to do with businessmen's concern about the impact of Obama's policies on the economy?"

BRENNAN: No Way. No How. No Brennan.

Many liberal bloggers are upset that John Brennan "remains the favorite" to be nominated as CIA Director:

• Bowers: "Brennan is a Gitmo apologist and actually executed the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping campaign."
• Open Left's Paul Rosenberg: "[Brennan] was not, like Gates, a fourth quarter BushCO replacement, but a BushCo cheerleader for its most noxious policies."

Sullivan is particularly upset: "It's fine not to uproot the entire agency and to have some continuity. But for Obama to appoint a Bush-Cheney apologist to the CIA? How on earth did this idea get this far? [...] We didn't work our butts off to elect Obama only to get Bush another four years at CIA. If Brennan emerges as the pick, those of us against the continuation of war crimes and the prosecution of war criminals will have to oppose him strenuously in the nomination process. We will, in fact, have to go to war with Obama before he even takes office."

HOLDER: Unpopular On The Right

Conservative bloggers remain extremely critical of Obama's apparent choice for AG, ex-Deputy AG Eric Holder:

• AmSpec Blog's John Tabin: "Holder [is] awful. Hostile to both the Second Amendment and the First, and horrible in lots of other ways."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Danny Glover notes that in the aftermath of the Columbine killings, one of then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder's responses was to seek government restrictions of speech on the Internet. [...] I guess when you've decided the Second Amendment is optional, I guess it's easier to conclude the one right next to it is optional, too."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Contrary to past statements, Holder was a lot more involved in the decision to pardon than he claimed to be, stating as early as 1999 that when it came to the charges against [financier] Marc Rich, '"the equities" were on Mr. Rich's side' and blaming U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White for refusing to have a meeting on the issue. [...] Remember: The appointment of Eric Holder as Attorney General is supposed to be part and parcel of Change We Can Believe In."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Getting Back In The Game

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat:

"On too many issues, conservatives have simply avoided the most important emerging debates, changing the subject whenever possible and leaving liberals to argue against liberals when it isn't. This is true, too often, in transportation and infrastructure policy; it's been true for some time in the climate change debate (though I'm hopeful that this changing); and it's often true in education, where the most interesting arguments are between liberal reformers and liberal interest groups, with conservatives sitting on the sideline talking about vouchers and occasionally praising the Michelle Rhees and Corey Bookers of the world.

This problem is not, repeat not, a matter of conservatives needing to abandon their core convictions in order to win elections, as right-of-center reformers are often accused of doing. Rather, it's a matter of conservatives needing to apply their core convictions to questions like 'how do we mitigate the worst effects of climate change?' and 'how do we modernize our infrastructure?' and 'how do we encourage excellence and competition within our public school bureaucracy?' instead of just letting liberals completely monopolize these debates, while the Right talks about porkbusting and not much else."

LEST WE FORGET: Obama Names Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Aniston To 'Team of Rivals'

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"Continuing in his quest to assemble a so-called 'team of rivals,' President-elect Barack Obama today announced that he would name Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston to key Cabinet positions. The two actresses, who have been perennial tabloid fodder as a result of their longstanding feud over actor Brad Pitt, were surprise choices for Mr. Obama's Cabinet, since neither of them has been a government official or even portrayed one in a movie.

But in his weekly Internet address, the President-elect explained his rationale for choosing the sworn enemies to his Cabinet: 'I chose Jennifer and Angelina for the same reason I have chosen every other Cabinet member: they clearly despise each other with a passion.'[...]

Doris Kearns Goodwin, historian and author of the book Team of Rivals, said that she was 'thrilled' by the selection of the two actresses to Mr. Obama's Cabinet.

'Every time someone says "team of rivals," I sell another book on Amazon,' she said. 'Team of rivals, team of rivals, team of rivals.'"

11/21: King Henry

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) on 11/20 officially dethroned Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) in a secret vote of 137-122, thereby ending Dingell's 27-year reign as chair of the powerful Energy and Commerce Cmte. Liberal bloggers, who had been rooting for environmentalist Waxman to replace the Detroit-friendly Dingell, predictably rejoiced. While cmte leadership battles are usually inside-baseball affairs, Waxman's accension had far-reaching ramifications, as bloggers of various stripes explained:

• Politico's Jonathan Martin: "At a substantive level, this news will have just as much impact than the assorted Cabinet appointments leaking out."
• Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[Dingell's defeat] is a very encouraging development. The Energy and Commerce Committee will be at the heart of the policy making on global warming, environmental, and energy policy, and Waxman will take a far more progressive and ambitious approach than Dingell would have. ... I honestly expected Dingell to prevail. He's been in the House for 27 terms, made a lot of friends, and had organized a large whip team to help him keep his gavel."
• American Prospect's Ezra Klein: "If you care about action on global warming, that's a very big deal indeed. ... [I]t's evidence that Democrats are serious enough about climate change to want the relevant committee to be something more than an arm of Detroit. And though this is a direct victory for Waxman, it's a quiet triumph for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi. Without her tacit support, Waxman's campaign would have quietly died. ... [Dingell] not only loses jurisdiction over global warming, but over health care and most everything else. And on some level, he's been publicly humiliated. Recalcitrant chairmen are going to be far more afraid of crossing Pelosi this afternoon than they were this morning."
• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Here's another wrinkle to consider.... Congressional insiders point out that Barack Obama, in a little-noticed move a few days ago, appointed as the top White House liason to Congress one Philip Schiliro, who has spent many of his past 25 years on the Hill working for (you guessed it) Waxman. In the wake of Waxman's victory, this is significant. It means Waxman will be closer to the center of the action and will have a direct line into the White House. ...Waxman is perhaps the House's leading legislator on three key issues prioritized by Obama: Universal health care, global warming, and the need for strengthened consumer protections. ... [I]t's another sign that Obama is extremely well positioned to make big things happen rather quickly once he takes power."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "This is a huge defeat for the Blue Dogs, who were hoping to use Dingell as a roadblock to keep any meaningful change from happening with regard to issues under the Committee's jurisdiction -- telecommunications and health care, energy and environmental protection, interstate commerce and consumer protection."
• BooMan: "Roll Call reported that the freshman class planned on voting roughly 18-3 in favor of Waxman, which tells us a little about their sensibilities on environmental issues and Blue Doggery in general. When you consider that the two Michigan freshmen came out openly for Dingell, it becomes obvious that the freshman class was nearly unanimous in supporting the liberal over the moderate. That's doubly surprising when you consider that we elected two congressmen from Alabama, one from Idaho, and another from North Carolina."

"On a sad note, John Dingell, who is serving his 27th term in Congress, has introduced a universal health care bill in every Congress since 1956. Now, at the very moment when his lifelong dream is going to be fulfilled, he gets kicked out of the chair that will mark-up the legislation. I feel badly about that." Also, as Grist's Kate Sheppard points out, Dingell is "just three months shy of becoming the longest-serving chairman in House history."

For progressives, Dingell's defeat offsets the disappointing Dem decision earlier this week to leave Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in his coveted Homeland Security Cmte chair. Hamsher: "This week the Senate voted to remain a bunch of self-protecting hacks by letting Lieberman keep his gavel, but the House voted for progress." The New Republic's Noam Scheiber: "Chris [Orr] proclaims the Waxman victory over John Dingell a big win for Barack Obama. I agree, for somewhat cynical reasons. In a nutshell: Letting Lieberman keep his chairmanship was clearly the right political move, but it also sent a somewhat dangerous message to Democrats, which is that you can cross Obama without paying for it. Dingell largely fixes that problem."

For conservatives, however, Waxman's victory could spell disaster for the ailing U.S. economy. PoliGazette's Jason: "Coming after a summer of record high gas prices and in the midst of a global financial crisis, the shift to the left could not come at a worse time. Waxman has a long record of harsh and unyielding partisanship and extreme demogogury. He is prone to demonize opponents rather than build bridges of compromise, as he did in his long anti-tobacco campaigns through the 1990s. He also has little interest in issues of practicality, preferring to stick with a hard ideological agenda even in the face of contravening facts. Given the scope of his committee's jurisdiction over issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, Waxman's record for extremism and intolerance poses yet another threat to the already fragile U.S. economy. ... For years, moderates and centrists complained about the over-the-top extremism that too often seemed to dominate the House Republican caucus. Now, it seems we are going to get the same political strychnine just in a different partisan flavor."

CLINTON: Leaks In The Kitchen Cabinet

While highly credible, Politico's Mike Allen's reporting last p.m. that Obama plans to name Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) the next Sec/State is just the latest in a string of "will she or won't she?" reports over the past week. As a result, the "No Drama" Obama camp has been "increasingly frustrated by a steady stream of leaks" from anonymous Clinton sources.

Voicing such frustration in the liberal blogosphere, Mother Jones's David Corn: "I was agnostic on the matter of Hillary Clinton's possible appointment as secretary of state.... [I]f Obama and his savvy band of advisers thought that handing her one of the best jobs in the Cabinet would generate political benefits they could use to advance their agenda, I, as a non-fan of Hillary Clinton, was willing to say, okay--for what that was worth. But then this happened: the presidential transition of no-drama Obama became infected by the never-ending soap opera of the Clintons. And it really is time to turn that program off. There are plenty of policy and political reasons for a progressive not to fancy Hillary. She served on the Wal-Mart board when the mega-firm was fighting unions; she screwed up health care reform for almost a generation; she voted wrong on the Iraq war and then refused to acknowledge she had erred. But, worst of all, as the cliché goes, with the Clintons, it always does seem to be about the Clintons."

"But there's another issue to consider, one that has been overshadowed by the drama: if she runs the State Department in a fashion similar to how she managed her campaign, then the country will be in trouble. Her spinners went beyond the boundaries of fair and reasonable spinning. Her team was a snake pit of competitive aides. She did not master the art of refereeing internal disputes. She signed off on strategic blunders. Hers was not a steady hand. Perhaps that's the better argument against her. Being secretary of state isn't just about giving speeches and touring the world as a celebrity, it's about managing (and now reviving) the creaky and beleaguered foreign policy apparatus of the United States. And Clinton's résumé is not strong on that front."

Other liberal bloggers are pushing back against such aspersions. Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat: "When I discuss Clinton Derangement Syndrome, this [NYT report] is what I mean: ... 'Some in the Obama camp are bristling at what they see as strategic leaks by the Clintons aimed at boxing in the president-elect and forcing him to offer the post.' Excuse me? As I have seen the story, the Clintons were minding their business when, last Thursday (yes, it has only been a week) President-Elect Obama asked Senator Clinton to come see him in Chicago. President Clinton has offered to remove any impediments he may cause. And 'some in the Obama camp bristle?' What in the hell?"

OBAMA: Hawk In Dove's Clothing?

With Clinton likely to take the Sec/State slot, Sec/Defense Robert Gates probably keeping his post, and other Clinton-era moderates filling Obama's Cabinet, anti-war activists are increasingly wary of Obama lurching to the right on foreign policy. Many conservative bloggers are rubbing those fears in the faces of liberal bloggers:

• NewsBusters' Tom Blumer: "Well, isn't this a hoot? As Barack Obama appears to be appointing less than totally pro-surrender officials to his inner circle, far leftists are feeling constrained in their criticism by Obama Mania. A Los Angeles Times article by Paul Richter with an amusing title ("Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet") notes that Obama has appointed or is considering many people who originally supported the war in Iraq (this apparently automatically makes them "hawks"). Richter's hawkish characterization of the likes of Richard Holbrooke, Hillary Clinton, Vice-president Elect Joe Biden, and John Kerry is inadvertently amusing to any reader who has followed the machinations in Washington since the 110th Congress began in January 2006."
• This Ain't Hell's Jonn Lilyea: "While Code Pink declares that they ended the war in Iraq by electing Obama, while IVAW chirps about meetings with Obama's staff, they still don't realized they're just being strung along. They threw Hillary Clinton under the bus for her vote in 2002, so now they get her for Secretary of State. And they're also getting the Senate Majority Leader who wrangled the vote for the war in Iraq and the airline bailout for his wife's industry in 2001 - Tom Daschle - in the Obama cabinet. ... So, all that Hope and Change stuff is out the window."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "[W]elcome to Washington, where it's almost always a case of 'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.' Obama needed to impress the Left to get the nomination, and now he needs to shed himself of the albatross in order to govern."
• Say Anything Blog's Rob: "This is the problem with personality cults. Once that personality has power it's hard to move outside of the cult to criticize him."

Meanwhile, conservative Ross Douthat and liberal Matthew Yglesias have a spirited exchange over whether Obama will in fact take a more hawkish approach to the Middle East:

• The Atlantic's Douthat: "Here's a fearless prediction: On an awful lot of issues, the Obama foreign policy will end cutting to the right of Bill Clinton's foreign policy, which was already more center-left than left. Even with the GOP brand in the toilet, Republicans are still trusted as much or more than Dems on foreign policy, mostly for somewhat nebulous 'toughness' reasons. So why give the Right a chance to play what's just about its only winning card, when you can satisfy your base with a phased withdrawal from Iraq that's scheduled to happen anyway while waxing hawkish on Pakistan, Afghanistan ... and who knows, maybe Iran as well? ... And with his right flank safely guarded ... he'll have that much more political for the big-ticket goals that will guarantee his place in the liberal pantheon -- universal health care, a New Deal for energy policy, a succession of young liberal judges who will tilt the Supreme Court leftward for a generation, etc. Among right-wing hawks, there will be strange-new-respectful talk about Obama's centrist instincts.... Meanwhile, the rest of the right-wing coalition will be getting steamrolled."
• Think Progress' Yglesias: "I object! All the work here is being done between the parenthesis. A phased withdrawal from Iraq plus a stepped-up campaign against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan wouldn't be a lurch to the right, that's what Obama's been calling for throughout the campaign. ... But add 'authorize airstrikes against Iran' to the mix, and then you're talking about something entirely different. Obama made repeated, explicit promises during the campaign for a new approach to Iran, and the new approach wasn't 'bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.' ... Maybe he'll break the pattern. But until he actually does, I think the safe thing to assume on foreign policy is that we'll keep seeing more of the same -- a President who meant what he said when he was a presidential candidate."
• Douthat: "First, I should have been clearer: I don't think Obama is going to 'lurch to the right,' exactly, on foreign policy. Rather, I think there was an assumption among many on the right (and in some precincts of the left) that he would swing to the left once in office. That assumption always seemed to me more rooted in paranoia and/or wishful thinking than in Obama's actual rhetoric and proposals, and I think that the hints we've gotten about his personnel choices to date bear my assumption out. If Barack Obama's comfortable with the idea of Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, he's just not going to be the ridiculously-dovish President a lot of right-wingers kept insisting he might be."
• "The Iran issue is a separate and much more speculative matter, I admit, but here I think Matt and I just disagree about how to think about the incoming President's foreign policy vision. He sees Obama's various breaks with establishment thinking during the campaign as marking a real departure from the sort of liberal hawkery that made so many establishment liberals sympathetic to the invasion of Iraq. And I see them as representing a much more superficial departure, in which the lessons of Iraq are 1) don't invade Iraq and 2) take diplomacy more seriously that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld did. These are, of course, perfectly plausible lessons to take, but they don't amount to a strategic rethink of America's approach to the Middle East, or the world. And they don't tell us that much about how Obama will handle the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran"

BUSH: With Judges Like These...

The Bush administration on 11/20 suffered a severe blow to its credibility as federal court ruled that five detainees imprisoned over the past seven years should be released immediately due to lack of evidence. NION's smintheus blogs the details: "Today the Bush administration suffered its fourth major defeat since June in litigation over detentions at Guantanamo. This ruling by US District Judge Richard Leon ... is the most devastating yet. He'd been expected to favor the government, not least because in 2005 Leon had ruled that the detainees have no habeas rights. And these are not low-profile prisoners. In his 2002 State of the Union address, George Bush had accused them of planning to bomb the US embassy building in Sarajevo. ... Leon found the government's case to be extremely flimsy, based as it was upon one undocumented allegation by a single unnamed source. ... Yet Leon rejected the administration's argument that five Algerian nationals formerly resident in Bosnia are enemy combatants and ordered their release 'forthwith'."

Striking a more ominous tone, Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Judge Leon is a Bush-43 appointed Judge known as a right-wing ideologue and known for ruling in favor of the Government and for expansive executive power. ... That Judge Leon -- of all judges -- ruled that there was no credible evidence to suggest that these detainees are 'enemy combatants' is as compelling a sign as one can imagine that there is no such evidence. Simply juxtapose that finding with the fact that these men have been imprisoned for seven straight years with no meaningful due process, and one can vividly see the grotesque injustices we have wrought with Guantanamo and our denial of basic due process to detainees. That is a stain -- one of many -- that will never be fully expunged."

NRO's Andy McCarthy was more circumspect: 'We don't know what the evidence was because virtually the entire proceeding was classified and thus sealed. The Times report says Judge Leon found "the information gathered on the men had been sufficient to hold them for intelligence purposes, but was not strong enough in court.' Why not? What was the standard of proof by which the court found evidence that was good enough to detain was now not good enough to detain? We don't know. In its Boumediene decision, the Supreme Court did not provide guidance as to how these habeas hearings it has ordered should be conducted. Congress, moreover, has failed to enact any rules, even though that is Congress's job... [AG Michael] Mukasey implored federal lawmakers to prescribe sensible procedures back in July — and the Democrat-controlled Congress gave him the back of the hand."

Nevertheless, McCarthy takes aim at Bush: "It seems pretty clear that the Bush administration did not help matters here. Nearly seven years ago, the President publicly claimed the Algerians were planning a bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in Sarajevo. Last month, however, the Justice Department suddenly informed the Court that it was no longer relying on that information. We've seen this sort of thing happen too many times over the last seven years, and the effect can only be to reduce the confidence of the court and the public that the government is in command of the relevant facts and can be trusted to make thoughtful decisions."

Responding to McCarthy, The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "When even the Cheney-Addington fan writes the following, you have some idea of just how dumb and counter-productive Bush's detainee policy has been. ... Does anyone now believe what Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld have stated as fact: that their administration captured the right people, treated them humanely and brought them to justice? They failed on all three counts. They committed, to paraphrase Talleyrand, a crime and a mistake. We are all less safe as a result."

Reason's Radley Balko piles on: "A Republican-appointed judge ... ordered their release forthwith, and urged the government not to appeal his ruling. That's a pretty resounding repudiation. And McCarthy's reaction is, 'Gee, I hope this doesn't undermine the public's faith in executive power!' It damned-well ought to. ... Me, I look at all of this and I worry that we've given the executive way too much power, that they're abusing that power, and that our government is arresting, detaining, and possibly torturing people who are either innocent, or clearly not a threat to the United States. McCarthy looks at all of this and worries that it might undermine the cause of continuing to give the executive unchecked power to keep people in prison indefinitely, no questions asked."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Generation Sap

Matt Maroon: "Interesting read on Wall Street Journal's website here about my generation's sense of entitlement. Allow me to rebut, on behalf of the millions of people born in the two decades after myself. What you mistake for entitlement is, in actuality, a differing world-view. We grew up seeing our parents and grandparents work their lives away in a state of near-indentured servitude. ... If we seem to have high self-esteem, it's because we're better. Not intrinsically, but because we're riding the rapidly accelerating wave of technological progress. ... [W]e're the Nintendo generation, and as such, we're all about working smarter rather than longer. ... Our desire to skip the long hours is not laziness; we're simply concerned with efficiency in everything we do. The 24 hour news cycle has made us more aware of our mortality than any generation before us, so we abhor waste, especially of time, which is the only thing in life you can't buy more of. ... We don't feel entitled. That notion comes from your feelings of inadequacy in the face of a rapidly changing technological and economic landscape. You know that most of what you learned in college can now be done by a $3 an hour data-entry clerk in India with a copy of QuickBooks and a cheap Dell, and the fact that we know it too makes you view us as entitled or egotistical."

LEST WE FORGET: Close Call

The Onion: "In a landmark decision Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled to uphold the Bill of Rights, the very tenets upon which American society is based. 'After carefully considering the relevance of the 10 inviolable rights that comprise the ideological foundation on which our nation is built, the court finds that these basic freedoms remain important for the time being, and should not be overturned,' read the majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the tie-breaking vote. 'Until such time as it can be definitively proven that citizens no longer require the protections provided by the Bill of Rights, it shall remain the principal legal guidance for the United States of America.' The Supreme Court's latest decision comes on the heels of last month's 6-3 ruling to abolish the pursuit of happiness from the three inalienable rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence."

11/20: How Are Obama's Cabinet Picks Playing?

Although liberal bloggers grumbled when it was reported that ex-Treasury Sec. Larry Summers was a top candidate to become Barack Obama's Treasury Sec., Obama's other rumored Cabinet appointees have met far less resistance from the netroots. As we reported yesterday, liberal bloggers are quite comfortable with the prospect of ex-Deputy AG Eric Holder as AG. They've also welcomed reports that Obama plans to tap ex-SD Sen. Tom Daschle as HHS Sec. They believe that Obama's desire to appoint someone with as much legislative experience as Daschle indicates that he is serious about "get[ting his] health care plan through Congress". Finally, liberal bloggers reacted positively to reports that Obama plans to tap AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano as DHS Sec, as they have a high opinion of Napolitano.

Unsurprisingly, reports that Obama wants NY Sen. Hillary Clinton to serve as his Sec/State have produced a more divided reaction from the netroots: some of them like the idea, but others don't.

DASCHLE: Universal Health Care Is On The Agenda!

Liberal bloggers are pleased with Obama's apparent decision to tap ex-Sen. Daschle as HHS Sec. and White House health "czar." They believe that Daschle's appointment indicates that Obama is serious about getting his health care plan through Congress:

• Ezra Klein: "This is huge news, and the clearest evidence yet that Obama means to pursue comprehensive health reform. You don't tap the former Senate Majority Leader to run your health care bureaucracy. That's not his skill set. You tap him to get your health care plan through Congress. [...] Compare the choice of Daschle to Clinton's decision to task Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner with health care reform. Neither Clinton nor Magaziner had any relevant experience in Washington, either with the health care bureaucracy or with the legislative branch. They did not have deep relationships on the Hill or a nuanced understanding of the players. [...] The choice of Daschle suggests that the Obama team has learned those ['94] lessons well."
• BooMan: "This appointment sends a strong signal that Obama is serious about a health care bill. As former Majority (and Minority) Leader of the Senate, Daschle knows the needs and idiosyncrasies of all but the most recently elected members. With Daschle working the Senate and Rahm [Emanuel] working the House, Obama should be able to get the maximum number of votes for whatever bill he wants. This is a very good appointment."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The Daschle announcement reinforces the notion that an Obama administration is going to take the push for healthcare reform very seriously."
• TPM's David Kurtz: "Former Sen. Tom Daschle's possible nomination as secretary of HHS is another sign to advocates of heath care reform that Obama means business and will put health care front and center early next year."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "This news doesn't come as too much of a surprise. It was rather clear that Tom Daschle would be a part of an Obama administration, with the former Senate Majority Leader aiding Barack Obama's presidential efforts and his one time staff making up much of the upper eschelon of Obama's Senate office. If Daschle wasn't going to become White House Chief of Staff, odds were that he would become Secretary of Health and Human Services, which will be a key position in an Obama administration angling to enact universal healthcare legislation."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "It doesn't come as a shock to see that Tom Daschle will be tapped as HHS Secretary. The more interesting news is the notion that Daschle 'will also reportedly be given a policy portfolio that stretches beyond the department in order to help shepherd health-care reform legislation in 2009.' Needless to say, it makes a ton of sense to ask a former Senate Majority Leader to lend a hand on doing legislative work rather than thinking of him primarily as someone to run the HHS bureaucracy. I don't, however, think you normally see roles formally designated in that matter, but it seems smart to do it. Of course the HHS bureaucracy is actually really big and important so this makes it important that the people around Daschle be well-suited to running the shop."

Conservative blogger Philip Klein is worried: "[This is] the surest sign yet that Barack Obama is serious about plans to forge a government takeover of America's health-care system. [...] Daschle, among other things, has called for a Federal Health Board to manage our nation's health care system just like the Federal Reserve Board manages the banking system. I suppose, like the Federal Reserve, the Federal Health Board will mess up the health-care system so that liberals can blame the private market and call for yet more government intervention."

NAPOLITANO: Another Solid Choice

Liberal bloggers are pleased with Obama's apparent decision to tap Gov. Napolitano as DHS Sec.:

• Benen: "Since its creation in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration's management of the newest cabinet agency has been a terrible mess. [...] Obama needed a strong, competent manager to clean up the department, bring some competence to the agency, and reverse some of the dysfunction that has burdened DHS for years. Given her record, Napolitano is a terrific choice."
• Firedoglake's bmaz: "As governor of a critical border state, and head of the National Governor's Association, Napolitano will have the credibility and experience with state governors that is necessary for many of the operations and coalitions that form the backbone of the DHS operation. The best news of all is that there will finally be an honest and competent person in the critical post that Michael Chertoff has been defiling the last few years."
• BooMan: "I think this is another excellent appointment. [Napolitano] certainly has experience with the illegal immigration issue."

MyDD's Todd Beeton is sad that Napolitano probably won't be challenging AZ Sen. John McCain in 2010: "Happy birthday, John McCain, two years early. You dodged a bullet."

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are criticizing Napolitano:

• Michelle Malkin: "On the surface, it may seem a promising pick. Napolitano made a few pro-immigration enforcement moves in her state -- including declaring a border security emergency and backing some employer sanctions. [...] But Napolitano's heart lies with the shamnesty crowd. She vetoed a bill cracking down on phony matricula consular cards for illegal aliens and rejected efforts allowing more cooperation between local law enforcement and the feds. She opposes assimilationist measures on English language and ID requirements to prevent voter fraud; she supports in-state tuition discounts for illegal aliens. In short, she's a double-talker and double-doer who will ensure the immigration chaos status quo."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "If the Department of Homeland Security was a mess under Republicans, welcome the Democratic years (a governor who doesn't like enfocing immigration laws is not promising)..."

HOUSE ENERGY & COMMERCE COMMITTEE: The Netroots Root For Waxman

Before House Dems voted this morning to replace Energy & Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell with Rep. Henry Waxman, liberal bloggers were rooting hard for Waxman, whom they thought would be more likely to pursue aggressive climate change policies:

• Klein: "Henry Waxman's decision to challenge John Dingell for chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee is a HUGE deal. Energy and Commerce is, along with Ways and Means, the key House Committee, with jurisdiction over both energy and health care legislation. This particular fight is not particularly important from a health reform perspective -- both Dingell and Waxman are solid allies and skilled legislators. But from an energy reform perspective, it's crucial. Dingell is a Detroit Democrat, and an opponent of substantive action on global warming because he fears its impact on the auto industry and his state. [...This is] an early test of how serious the House Democratic Caucus is about global warming legislation."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "Waxman is the one that should win this battle. No ifs ands or buts. If he doesn't, and seniority takes priority over progressive principles, we are not on the right path."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "This truly is a vote between the failed past of Dingell and the future with Waxman. We'll find out today if the House Democrats are serious about energy and global warming issues. Dingell has been -- and would be -- the biggest obstacle."
• Yglesias: "To an outsider observer, it's pretty clear that Waxman is a serious environmentalist who's really committed to tackling the climate change issue. John Dingell isn't a villain, and one gets the sense he's really doing his best at this point to try to square the needs of the environment with the needs of the Michigan-based auto industry, but he hasn't actually found a satisfactory way to do it."
• dday: "Earlier this year, a majority of the House caucus has signed a letter to [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi asking for greater efforts to combat climate change. Waxman at Energy is a key to that happening. [...] I was skeptical that House Democrats would be pushed in the direction of progress, but with Waxman's former chief of staff, Phil Schiliro, in the Obama White House, some pressure may be coming down from the top. It's in all of our interests to have Henry Waxman atop this committee."

PARKER: Kathleen Burns More Bridges

Righty bloggers are blasting conservative Washington Post columnist (and noted Sarah Palin critic) Kathleen Parker after she criticized "the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP":

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Just as Arianna Huffington was once a conservative writer who was even found on these very (web) pages, Kathleen Parker has gone over to the Dark Side. This is not one column we're talking about here."
• RedState's bs: "I can endure a lot. And with Kathleen Parker, I have. The Left's pet quasi-Republican is at it again. Her criticisms of Sarah Palin during the campaign were bad enough. But now she joins the chorus of those aching to throw social conservatives under the bus. Oh, but it's not just socons -- it's Christian socons in particular. Her latest screed is particularly offensive. It is mocking, rude, and insulting. [...] It's time for Ms. Parker to disappear from any publications (e.g. Townhall) that make claims to represent conservatives and Republicans. She is not the kind who should be representing us to the world. Perhaps HuffPo is looking for writers."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "Kathleen Parker wrote a memorable column blaming Abu Ghraib on soldiers watching too many Farrelly brothers movies. If this moronic caricature of social conservatism is what she believes to be the real thing, I'm not surprised that she would think it is a political liability. If this is what she thinks passes for thoughtful political commentary, however, I am surprised anyone takes her seriously."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "As a matter of political analysis it's beyond absurd to think the GOP can become a majority party by adopting a rhetorical tone toward religious conservatives usually found at the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos. I'm sure Bill Maher agrees with Kathleen. But normally, at least for people who call themselves conservatives, when Bill Maher agrees with you it's a sign that you took a wrong turn somewhere."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "If you think her martyr complex is irritating now, wait until she starts citing those [critical blog] posts as evidence that she's been excommunicated, oogedy-boogedy-like, from the church of conservative opinion. I suspect the reply column -- doubtless to be entitled, 'Here I Stand, I Can Do No Other' -- is being written as we speak."

Malkin urges her fellow conservative bloggers to ignore Parker: "Four words about Kathleen Parker: Don't feed the troll. It is an abject waste of time, energy, and capital to do otherwise."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dear Democrats: If You Must Blame, Blame Obama

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver:

"...when a vote that looked as though it was going to be fairly close originally instead passed the caucus 42-13, something happened to whip that result into shape, and that something was Barack Obama. True the caucus might have voted to retain Lieberman on its own -- or it might not have. But Obama's signal last week to extend Lieberman a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card was the immediate cause of that decision. Conversely, Obama could probably have engineered the opposite result if he'd wanted. [...]

In our interview with him yesterday, [DNC Chair] Howard Dean dropped some very strong hints about what Obama is up to. We should expect him to be as methodical and meticulous about spending his political capital as he was about spending his advertising dollars and his ground game resources during the campaign. One can debate whether the Democratic caucus was more likely to achieve certain progressive policy outcomes with or without Lieberman in its ranks, but to Obama's mind, kicking him out would have been a giving both the Washington press corps and the Republicans a sort of shiny red apple, creating a huge distraction and requiring a significant expenditure of political capital.

So how you feel about Lieberman should ultimately hinge on how you feel about Obama, and how you feel about Obama should ultimately hinge on your opinion about whether he is liable to put that political capital to good use. If you believe Dean's implication that Obama is going to use that political capital to pass both significant climate change reform and significant health care reform within the first two years of his presidency, you probably ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. If, on the other hand, you see Obama as someone more concerned with the accumulation of power toward ambiguous, uncertain, or incorrect ends, this is liable to be the first of a long line of displeasing decisions, and you had better get used to pushing back against the White House."

LEST WE FORGET: Fraternity In Danger Of Losing House Launches Harebrained Scheme To Fix Economy

From The Onion:

"DURHAM, NC -- When the residents of Sigma Alpha Theta house learned last week that the 80-year-old building they call home was under threat of foreclosure, they decided to take matters into their own hands by devising a wacky, R-rated plan to completely repair the battered American economy.

'The moment we got the bad news, we knew there was only one thing we could do,' said Theta president Peter 'Cool Pete' Barrow. 'Sneak into the Federal Reserve Bank with two cans of Barbasol and a giant fishing net in order to adjust the overnight lending rate while no one is looking.' [...]

While Theta House is closely guarding the details of its laugh-a-minute economy-rebuilding scheme, Barrow admitted that it involves a 50-gallon drum of Crisco, the U.S. Senate, five Russian exchange students in bikinis, incentives designed to provoke a massive injection of capital from the private sector over the next three fiscal quarters, and a dead horse."

11/19: This One Stings

Liberal bloggers are outraged that Senate Dems decided by a 42-13 vote to allow ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Gov't Affairs committee (while taking away his chairmanship of a less important environmental subcommittee). Here are a few of their comments:

• "I'm done with [Harry] Reid as Senate leader."
• "It's becoming increasingly clear that the current crop of Democrats are genetically incapable of showing, or growing, a spine."
• "Having Democrats overlook Lieberman's extremist views and reward him is anything but 'change.'"

Lefty bloggers are portraying Senate Dems as weak and overly concerned with appearing bipartisan. They're also accusing Senate Dems of ignoring the will of the electorate, which "voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies." One liberal blogger is urging her readers to "sign up to help re-defeat Joe Lieberman" in CT's 2012 Senate race.

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are taking pleasure in their liberal counterparts' "bitter frustration". One righty blogger described yesterday's Senate vote as proof that "the netroots are no longer needed" once an election is over.

LIEBERMAN: This Isn't Change We Can Believe In

Liberal bloggers are angry and upset that Senate Dems allowed Lieberman to retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[This vote demonstrates] disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn't a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems. I'm done with Reid as Senate leader."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "It's high irony for Reid to talk about being 'unified as Democrats.' He just told the people who worked hard for [Barack] Obama's election, who still want to see some oversight on Katrina, to go Cheney themselves. I'm not feeling too welcome at the moment."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Maybe we don't need those extra Senate seats in Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia. I mean, I'd love for [Mark] Begich, [Al] Franken and [Jim] Martin to win, but what's the point? Why bust our asses for these guys, for the party, when people like Lieberman, who actually campaigned AGAINST some of these guys, are rewarded for their betrayal? It's becoming increasingly clear that the current crop of Democrats are genetically incapable of showing, or growing, a spine. The only way to get anything in this party is to publicly betray the party, to beat the living crap out of them, to stick the knife in deep and twist. Lesson duly noted."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "I sort of get tired of making this point, but Democratic leaders are often not on our side, they often don't agree with us, and it's foolish to consider them as teammates. They aren't."

Daily Kos' Hunter explains why he considers this vote significant: "People in America want a change from the Bush years -- desperately. And they voted for it, delivering a thumping mandate for Obama. They want things to change, and that's why this minor battle has taken on so much meaning, and why people are so peeved: this was the first test of mettle, and it showed no mettle at all. [...] You don't put the status quo guy in charge unless you want the status quo, and you don't put an ideological Republican in the Homeland Security chair unless you want the results to be Republican. That's why people are enraged -- not merely because Leiberman is such an ass, but because this is a clear signal that the Senate has no intention of running things in 2009 any differently than they did 2007 or 2008, and that means (1) weakness, (2) pussy-footing, and (3) allowing Republican obstructionism at every turn. Even in situations where the Republicans (or their ideological allies, like Lieberman) have absolutely no clout whatsoever."

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen analyzes how this happened: "In retrospect, as soon as the option of kicking Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus was taken off the table, the center of gravity shifted. Initially, taking away Lieberman's committee chairmanship was the compromise/middle-ground between two extremes (giving him the boot and doing nothing). Once Democrats agreed that they preferred to keep Lieberman in the caucus, all of a sudden, stripping him of his gavel became the new extreme position, and the EPW subcommittee became the new 'compromise.' The shift obviously benefited Lieberman."

Benen continues: "Second, let's pause to appreciate just how smart Lieberman is. In this case, I don't mean that as a compliment. It was inconceivable that if Obama won in a veritable landslide, while the Senate Democratic caucus grew by (at least) six seats, that Lieberman would not only get off scot-free, but would also be in a position to dictate to Democrats, without any leverage at all, which outcomes he found 'unacceptable.' If someone had predicted this scenario to me a month ago, I could have found it ridiculous. And yet, here we are."

LIEBERMAN II: Way To Stand Up For Yourselves, Dems!

Liberal bloggers are portraying Senate Dems as weak and overly concerned with appearing bipartisan:

• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "It appears as though four in five Democrats in the United States Senate are content with their committee leadership including a member who actively campaigned not only for the Republican Presidential nominee but also Republican Senators up for reelection this fall. I knew the Senate was a collegial place...I just didn't know it was this collegial."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Having Democrats overlook Lieberman's extremist views and reward him is anything but 'change.' That's perfectly consistent with -- not a departure from -- how Washington works: political disagreements can be expressed on the rhetorical level but they're virtually always subordinated to the far greater imperative of bipartisan harmony within the political class."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I see that Senate Democrats have voted to allow Joe Lieberman to keep his committee chairmanship. I guess they really showed him, didn't they? No Democrat will ever dare to support a Republican candidate for president, speak at the Republican national convention in prime time, and bad mouth the Democratic Party's candidate ever again."
• Benen: "Lieberman endorsed McCain, spoke at the GOP convention, helped down-ballot Republicans, and smeared the Democratic nominee at every available opportunity, and the caucus decided to let him off the hook entirely."

In a separate post, Moulitsas writes: "I have an idea! In the spirit of post-partisanship, and in spite of the American people's overwhelming votes for change in 2006 and 2008, let's appoint fierce global warming critic James Inhofe to the Environment and Public Works committee! Shit, that wouldn't be any worse than appointing fierce Obama critic and Iraq War supporter Joe Lieberman to the Homeland Security committee. But in all seriousness, I think we've now learned that Joe Lieberman is the smartest politician in DC. He knew Democrats were spineless capitulators who would cave at the merest threat no matter how many times he shit in their face. He's probably having a great laugh about it just about now. Given how much he is hated by his constituents, he at least knows that the Senate Democratic caucus are a bunch of spineless asses utterly unwilling and unable to deliver the change the American people requested."

LIEBERMAN III: Dean Tries To Bridge The Divide

DNC Chair Howard Dean tried to mollify the netroots after the Senate vote by conducting a round of calls with liberal bloggers (including Hamsher, Joan McCarter, Nate Silver, and Greg Sargent):

• McCarter: "Dean's right, we are going to have to figure out where we go from here with a new administration, what our role as the left flank is going to be, and what battles we pick. Obama and the Senate Dems decided that repudiating Joe wasn't worth the potential downsides -- we'll see how that works for them in the next few years. Given Joe's track record, it could be a very bad bet on their part. The Joe Lieberman fight was more than symbolic, more than revenge, more than anger. It's been a long-standing fight to try to make Democrats stand up for themselves and what they believe in. Lieberman obviously abandoned the core of the party when he decided to stand with Bush and McCain on the critical issues of the day. This is a battle we had to fight, if we were going to remain true to our role in the party. There are going to be plenty more in the future..."
• Sargent: "Dean also said he understood the natural human desire for 'revenge,' a description that will dismay many of Dean's allies in the liberal blogosphere, who maintain (as do I) that this wasn't solely about retribution."

Moulitsas mocks Dean's assertion that Dems earned "a mandate for reconciliation" with their victories this year: "Given this 'mandate for reconciliation', I suspect that Reid won't reduce committee staff and seats for Republicans? Since that would be punitive. And we all want reconciliation, right? And maybe we can give Inhofe his committee chairmanship back, because apparently, the American people didn't vote for change. And while we're at it, it just wouldn't be right for Obama to rid the executive branch of its thousands of political appointees, right? Because the first act once you have a 'mandate for reconciliation' shouldn't be booting people out of their jobs for the pesky little reason that they supported the other party. Right?"

Stoller harshly criticizes Dean's defense of the Senate's decision: "There were three Senators who said they spoke up against Lieberman in the caucus today. [OR Sen.-elect Jeff] Merkley, [VT Sen. Bernie] Sanders, and [VT Sen. Pat] Leahy. All three should be commended, as they were not just exercising a vote but resisting the wishes of President-elect Obama. Most Democrats fell in line, Howard Dean leading the way in his final act of humiliating kowtowing before the DC Democrats who repeatedly undermine him and his backers."

LIEBERMAN IV: Putting Policy First?

A few liberal bloggers suggested that allowing Lieberman to keep his chairmanship was smart from a policy perspective, even if it wasn't emotionally satisfying:

• Ezra Klein: "If [this is] not the most satisfying resolution, it's almost certainly the smartest one. Obama is counting votes, not prosecuting grudges. Lieberman's slingshot into the furthest reaches of the far right was always a sadly transparent reaction to his rejection by the left. Human beings do not enjoy criticism. They gravitate towards affirmation. If he can be flipped yet again, that's a far better outcome from the perspective of passing major pieces of legislation, even if it's not the most 'just' outcome from a party perspective. This, incidentally, is the other side of No Drama Obama: Part of avoiding drama is refusing to make decisions based on your own drama. You're seeing it with Lieberman and you're seeing it with [Hillary] Clinton. Whatever the objective strategic merits of these moves, Obama is building out his administration with little heed to the resentments and hurt feelings of the campaign. He's letting the campaign drama die so that his agenda may live."
• Singer: "Some in the press may try to frame today's vote on Joe Lieberman, and specifically Barack Obama's actions in relation to the vote, on left versus right terms, that it was a Sister Souljah moment in a sense. Yet it seems to me that this actually fits more neatly into another frame -- namely that Obama putting policy above process. [...] Process dictates (and I think it's right here) that Lieberman should not enjoy the benefits of the Democratic majority he undercut and campaigned against, retaining his chairmanship. Yet Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee -- particularly if he owed his chairmanship to Obama, which he does. Under this rationale, Obama will have an easier go in forwarding his legislative agenda in the Senate with Lieberman beholden to him than Lieberman weaker, but mad at him."

MyDD's Josh Orton disagrees with Singer: "First, there's really no evidence to support an assumption that Lieberman will feel either constrained or in debt now that Obama's allowed him to keep his gavel. Why? Because given his past actions, there's no reason to imagine Lieberman will finally start operating in good faith. For example, after Obama campaigned for Lieberman in his primary against [Ned] Lamont and then stayed almost completely out of the general election, Joe certainly didn't act like like he owed his seat to Obama. Quite the contrary: Lieberman proceeded to endorse McCain and smear Obama throughout the Presidential election. I also don't agree that 'Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.' Had Lieberman been stripped of his Homeland Security chair, he would not have bolted to the Republican caucus (where he'd have less power). Rather, it was only an empty threat meant to sidetrack the traditional media. There's simply no way Lieberman would have started voting like a Republicans on more issues than he does now. But he would have been without subpoena power."

LIEBERMAN V: Suck On That, Liberals!

The netroots were disgusted after an anonymous Senate Dem aide made the following comments to The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza:

"Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: 'The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question.'"

• Hamsher: "I hope this puts to rest the notion that this is all some master stroke of kumbayah, of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. This is about telling you that you mean nothing. That democracy is a nice word, but it should never threaten the entitlement of the most exclusive club in the world. No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him."
• Aravosis: "Jane Hamsher is right. The Democrats have sent a clear message to all of you out there, to the entire blogosphere, but also to the larger Netroots (and that includes MoveOn, Media Matters and everyone else in the progressive online space). You don't matter to these people. They don't fear you, so they don't care what you think."
• Greenwald: "Senate Democrats...consider it a good thing to scorn their supporters on what they consider to be 'the Left.' For anyone willing to hear it, they've made as clear and resounding a statement -- again -- about who they are and who they do and don't listen to."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "Seems to me that House and Senate leaders have declared an all-out war on 'the Left.' In fact, 'seems' is the wrong word. It doesn't 'seem' like that. They are actually saying it explicitly. [...] It's pretty odd that only two weeks after a landslide election that saw a huge ideological progressive mandate, Democratic congressional leaders think it's a great public message to declare jihad on progressives. I don't know, call me crazy, but I think 67 million people voted for Democrats because they want Democrats to reject Bush's ideological conservatism and solve problems -- not spend their time making paranoid, quasi-McCarthy-ist speeches deriding 'the Left.' If we wanted that, wouldn't we have elected John McCain and Sarah Palin?"
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "What with several wars and an economic meltdown and and unstable future for oil consumption, you would think there would be lots of things to worry about for our elected leaders and beltway insiders. You would be wrong. Apparently the first priority for the beltway boys is pissing off the nutroots."

LIEBERMAN VI: Schadenfreude On The Right

Several conservative bloggers used yesterday's Senate vote as an opportunity to mock the netroots:

• RedState's Moe Lane: "Behold the awesome power of the netroots!"
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "This action is taken in direct defiance of the netroots, which pushed for the maximum punishment for Lieberman. The netroots, in their vanity, are completely shocked and outraged, but one wonders why this is so. After all, the election is over, the money-raising has abated for the moment, the ginning up of partisan passions is no longer as necessary as it was and the politicians in Washington don't have to pretend that they are impressed by the likes of Daily Kos, or Firedoglake or any other hyperpartisan netroots site out there. In short, for the moment, the netroots are no longer needed and as such, there is no need to cater to the revenge fantasies nursed by the netroots. Thus today's vote in the Senate Democratic Caucus. There will be other such votes that will enrage and disappoint the netroots. After those votes are taken, the political class will have the nerve to approach the netroots and ask for more support. And unless I miss my guess, the netroots will readily say 'yes,' credulously believing that if only it is more accommodating, it will be listened to next time. Good luck with that."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Doesn't 2009 look a little better already? Anybody want to celebrate their bitter frustration?"

Weekly Standard blogger (and ex-McCain spokesperson) Michael Goldfarb slams Lieberman's liberal critics: "Perhaps Lieberman was more committed to the fight than his counterpart on the Obama campaign, [NE Sen.] Chuck Hagel, but any sense of proportion has been lost by the hysterics leading the anti-Joe lynch mob. And there are no pitchfork wielding Republicans intent on burning Chuck Hagel at the stake. There was hardly a peep from the right over his heresy because nobody cared. The Democratic party and the left won a stunning victory in this election, and while they should be savoring it (and most are) a few are busy trying to settle old scores. It's pathetic, but it's also cause for some optimism: these people are a cancer on the Democratic party that even a landslide victory couldn't cure."

HOLDER: Obama Strikes Out Again

Conservative bloggers are blasting Obama's apparent decision to tap ex-Deputy AG Eric Holder as AG:

• NRO's Andy McCarthy: "So Sen. Obama, who is trying to distance himself from the Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, has named to his Vice Presidential Search Committee Eric Holder...the top Clinton Justice Department official who was deeply enmeshed in the disgraceful pardons granted by President [Bill] Clinton on his way out the door -- pardons which included two Weather Underground terrorists, whose lengthy terrorism sentences were commuted. (And that is to say nothing of Holder's involvement in the infamous pardon of the international fraudster, Marc Rich.)"
• Jennifer Rubin: "...The mind reels as to why this person, who participated in a notorious Clinton scandal and himself seemed so oblivious to his own conflict of interest, would be chosen. Is this the New Politics? Or is it a throwback to the Clinton years, the very years Obama is attempting to turn the page on, to put behind us all? When one looks to the people Obama in turn has selected as mentors (e.g., Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright, Father Michael Pfleger), friends (e.g., Tony Rezko), and now key advisors (e.g., Eric Holder), voters may begin to question whether Obama possesses the judgment necessary to run an effective and scandal-free administration. If Holder is emblematic of Obama's personnel decisions and an example of what is to come, the answer is 'no.'"

Conservative bloggers are also upset that ex-MD LG Michael Steele, who's campaigning to be the next RNC Chairman, praised Holder as "a good man" and "a principled individual":

• McCarthy: "Sure, Michael, Eric Holder is a very 'principled individual.' As the editors observe this morning, it's a shame those principles don't include adherence to the Justice Department's high standards of procedural rigor, equal justice under the law, and non-politicized law enforcement -- y'know, the ones Democrats have been lecturing us about for the last several years. I wonder what Sen. [Charles] Schumer -- or, for that matter, Michael Steele -- would say if [ex-AG] Alberto Gonzales had greased the skids to pardon 16 FALN terrorists, two Weather Underground terrorists, and Marc Rich...when, in his spare time, he was having six-year-olds seized at gunpoint by SWAT teams for transport to a Communist dictatorship."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "If I were a Republican senator, I might be justifiably peeved that my 'chairman' signed off on two sensitive nominations before they even hit the Senate."

Power Line's John Hinderaker is one of the few conservative bloggers who isn't particularly troubled by Holder: "Holder has been attacked for his role in the Marc Rich pardon, which you can read about here; the bottom line, I think, is that Holder was a Clinton loyalist and acted as such. Bill Clinton is responsible for the Rich pardon, not Holder, and it is silly for a single incident of this sort to blot a person's career, on either side of the aisle. Holder is no doubt much more liberal than we are, but that's what happens when a Democrat wins the Presidential election. He's no extremist; he was appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan and most recently has been working for Covington & Burling, not exactly an outpost of socialism. Holder is obviously a capable guy, and he is a DOJ insider in a way that Alberto Gonzales, say, could never be."

HOLDER II: A Fine Choice

Most liberal bloggers are comfortable with Holder, and they especially like his rhetoric on torture:

• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "If [Newsweek's] Michael Isikoff is correct in reporting that Eric Holder will be the new Attorney General it's probably a good sign that Obama really does intend to abandon the Bush torture policy."
• digby: "Eric Holder as AG sounds like an excellent choice to me. Check out what Jerome Corsi had to say about him in Newsmax last June."

Liberal bloggers are also downplaying Holder's role in Clinton's controversial pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich:

• Drum: "I've been scanning a bunch of stuff about Eric Holder, Obama's apparent pick for attorney general, and the conventional wisdom appears to be pretty simple: (1.) He's basically a decent guy: sound views, hard worker, smart, honest, and generally well thought of. (2.) Conservatives are going to try their damnedest to work everyone into a lather over his rather modest involvement in the Marc Rich pardon eight years ago. From what I can tell, though, conservatives would be smarter to lay off. Holder really does appear to be honest, well briefed, straight shooting, and temperamentally moderate. They're going to get a liberal AG whether they like it or not, and they could do a lot worse than Holder if they somehow manage to torpedo his nomination."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "I loathed [the Rich] pardon. But as far as I can tell, Holder's role was as follows: he was called hours before Bush was to be sworn in, and was asked what he thought about a pardon, which (he was told) Ehud Barak strongly supported. He should have raised red flags, but didn't. It's unclear how much he knew about the case, or whether he knew that the phone call to him was a significant part of what little vetting of the pardon there was. (Obviously, it should not have been. That was part of the problem.) This does not sound like a dealbreaker to me, especially since I suspect that in an Obama administration, people will not be asked to weigh in on pardons out of the blue on the night before he leaves office. Otherwise, he seems like a very impressive guy."
• The Reality-Based Community's Jonathan Zasloff: "Expect the right wing outrage machine to quickly spring into action. They will insist that Holder was somehow involved with Clinton's last-minute pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Don't believe a word of it. The 'evidence' that they will offer for this is a 'report' generated by the House Government Reform Committee chaired by that paragon of nonpartisan judiciousness, [IN Rep.] Dan Burton. Essentially, what happened was that Rich's attorneys came to Holder in the waning days (hours?) of the Clinton Administration with the pardon request. Holder didn't know much about it, and he referred them to White House Counsel Jack Quinn. Yes, Rich was a fugitive, but Holder didn't know anything about the case, so he didn't express an opinion. That's it. That's the whole thing. That's what is going to get [Rush] Limbaugh, and [Sean] Hannity, and Fox Noise, and [Bill] O'Reilly, and all of them so shocked, shocked, about the appointment."

STEVENS: Adios, Ted

Conservative bloggers aren't going to miss outgoing AK Sen. (and convicted felon) Ted Stevens, who lost his re-election bid. They're upset that the GOP allowed Stevens to run for re-election in the first place:

• The Weekly Standard's Mary Katharine Ham: "Stevens deserves to lose."
• Michelle Malkin: "Good riddance to Ted Stevens. Alaska's GOP corruptocrat has lost his Senate re-election bid. Shouldn't have taken so long."
• Glenn Reynolds: "I'm not happy about the Dems becoming more filibuster-proof, but I can't really mind this too much...I said last year that the GOP shouldn't have let [Stevens] run, and, well, they should've listened."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Stevens has lost. And the Republicans look as bad as the other guys for not taking a stand on the matter, in my humble opinion."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Another black eye for the GOP that could have been avoided if they'd pushed this tool into retirement back when they should have."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: All Is Not Forgiven

Right Wing News' John Hawkins is unhappy that McCain appears to be running for re-election in 2010:

"In the last 8 years, John McCain has been uniquely destructive to conservatism and the Republican Party. He has undercut Republicans time and time again, helped cripple the party's fundraising with McCain-Feingold, helped completely demoralize the conservative base by pushing amnesty and open borders -- and then to top it all off, he lost the 2008 presidential election for us while his aides classlessly trashed Sarah Palin.

If the choice is between having John McCain back for another 6 years in 2010 and having a Democrat, let me go on record now as saying I'd much rather have the Democrat. Put another way, if it came right down to it, 60 Democrats would be easier for conservatives to deal with than 59 Democrats and John McCain.

...Of course, it would be even better if we could beat McCain in a primary. That might be doable if we could get a high quality candidate. So, is there any prominent Republican in Arizona who wants to help save the Republican Party by beating McCain? If so, throw your hat in the ring...."

LEST WE FORGET: History Doomed To Repeat Itself, Reports Man Who Just Dropped Food On Pants

From The Onion:

"DENVER -- After dropping a chili dog in his lap Tuesday, area resident Marcus Nielson addressed the food-related blunder, calling it but another example of how history, marred by the inevitable folly of man, repeats itself. 'Will mankind never learn?' asked Nielson, gazing into the middle distance, his outstretched palm holding a limp and sodden paper plate. 'Sausages, ground beef, onions, garlic -- oh, what blind and obstinate fools we've been!' According to friends, Nielson has previously compared the spilling of macaroni salad to 'the inexorable march of time: its conclusion already a certainty,' likened the tipping over of various beverages to the 'age-old dance between balance and chaos,' and once, after falling down an entire flight of stairs, remarked, 'Jesus fucking Christ.'"

11/18: Netroots' Hopes Dashed

Early yesterday, liberal bloggers were excitedly buzzing about the news that DE Sen. Tom Carper -- a close ally of ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman -- told The Hill that Lieberman needed to suffer "consequences" for his conduct during the presidential campaign. Lefty bloggers interpreted Carper's statement as "a stunning rebuke" that suggested that Lieberman's prospects of holding onto his chairmanship were in "serious trouble". However, the netroots' hopes were soon dashed when multiple sources reported that Senate Dems had reached a deal that would allow Lieberman to retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee in exchange for giving up his chairmanship of his (less important) environmental subcommittee. Liberal bloggers were disgusted by the reported compromise, calling it "not acceptable". Glenn Greenwald was not surprised: "Nobody who has watched Congressional Democrats over the last many years could possibly have expected any other outcome. This is who they are and what they do."

LIEBERMAN: Pathetic. Just Pathetic.

Liberal bloggers are denouncing the reported compromise reached by Senate Dems, which allows Lieberman to retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee in exchange for giving up his chairmanship of an environmental subcommittee:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[This compromise is] not acceptable. [...] Let Lieberman keep that subcommittee. No one gives a shit about it. The only thing that matters, the only thing that Lieberman wants, and the only thing we don't want him to have -- is the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. If this is the 'starting point', and given the Senate Democrats' history of capitulations, expect Lieberman to come out of that meeting as majority leader."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Seems like Joe has learned well from his Republican colleagues. He's trashed the president-elect and worked against Democratic Senate candidates. For that, he'll be rewarded. He's called the Democrats bluff. This is, of course, instructive for the small GOP caucus. They now know that the Democrats in the Senate are all talk, no action. Not a good signal to send. But, that's what Democrats do. They cave. Pathetic."

In a separate post, Moulitsas warns Senate Dems that the secret ballot will not protect them: "If senators believe they can hide from their constituents by voting for Lieberman in secret, they'll be mistaken. If Lieberman wins the vote, there will be calls to find out how they voted, and as far as I'm concerned, silence will be treated as a pro-Lieberman vote. Now these senators may not care what their constituents think. But given the American people voted overwhelmingly for change, keeping George Bush's best friend on Iraq in his committee, removing him in favor of someone in tune with popular sentiment (and the incoming administration) should be a no-brainer. And if the Senate spits in the face of this desire for change, then at the very least they should have the balls to own up to it."

LIEBERMAN II: What's The Logic Behind This?

Liberal bloggers think it makes no sense to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship of an Environment and Public Works subcommittee (where his views tend to align with those of his Dem colleagues) while allowing him to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee (where his views tend to be at odds with those of his Dem colleagues):

• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "[You] couldn't design this worse if you tried. [...] The plan is to strip Lieberman of the subcommittee where he's actually a good Democrat, but leave him in control of the full committee where he stands in opposition to the [Barack] Obama administration, the Democratic Caucus, and most of America."
• BooMan: "If this reporting is correct, Lieberman will be stripped of a subcommittee chair that presides over an issue where he votes with the Democrats, and left in charge of a full and subcommittee (Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland) where he votes against the Democrats. That's fucking brilliant."

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz is one of the few liberal bloggers who's comfortable with the reported compromise: "My gut says that Lieberman should lose his position and basically be ostracized by his colleagues; what he did during the campaign was shameful, especially after Obama campaigned with him in his last dicey reelection. [...] At the same time, though, I'm not inclined to lose a vote in the Senate -- either to the Republican caucus, or, if you think he wouldn't go that far, just to uncooperative pique. It's all very easy to get excited about revenge but the end of the day I'm more excited passing progressive legislation, which needs to go through the Senate. Obviously the Senate Democratic majority has grown a good deal and sixty votes as a number doesn't matter as much as we like to think it does, but one more vote is one more vote. And I'm not sure his punishment would really have a lot of deterrent power -- are there are many Democratic Senators who would undermine the party in the same way as Lieberman except for their worries of losing their seniority? In the end, the only purpose it serves is getting a little vengeance. Which is nice, but doesn't get us anywhere. So let keep him in the caucus, give him a slap on the wrist...and have the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fund a primary challenger in 2012."

Open Left's Daniel De Groot, on the other hand, doesn't think Lieberman will ever be a reliable vote for Dems: "[Lieberman] is supposed to be socially liberal, and to want things like more health care, better schools, an equitable tax system and so forth. His constituents certainly want those things, but Lieberman is prepared to vote against his supposed beliefs and their interests if he doesn't get his way on a committee matter. [...] While I have little faith Lieberman's vote can really be counted on for key cloture votes on domestic and social issues important to the Democrats, I could understand what the Democrats are futilely trying to do here. I think it is the wrong thing to do, but I will be happy to admit I am wrong if this manoeuvre buys Lieberman as the 60th vote to get card-check, ENDA or a tax increase on the wealthy through the Senate. After all, you can't expect him to vote his conscience, he has just told you he doesn't have one."

LIEBERMAN III: Dems Capitulated? Shocking!

Most liberal bloggers aren't surprised that Senate Dems aren't willing to take away Lieberman's committee chairmanship:

• Salon's Greenwald: "Nobody who has watched Congressional Democrats over the last many years could possibly have expected any other outcome. This is who they are and what they do. The silver lining is that it will once again remind people, still euphoric over the election results, of this reality. And as the anger pours forth from people who raise money for Democrats and expended huge amounts of time and effort to elect Barack Obama, the more vindicated Senate Democrats will feel in what they just did. That's how they look centrist and bipartisan -- by infuriating their supporters, the perceived 'Left.' They don't believe in Sister Souljah moments; they believe in Sister Souljahism as an operating principle, a way of life."
• digby: "The minute I read this, this morning, I knew the fix was in. Corporate whore Tom Carper giving Holy Joe a good public scolding could be nothing more than kabuki. A deal had been reached and Joe was going to keep his gavel. They'd slap him with some kind of superficial 'sanction' and maybe he'd apologize, but that's the end of that. That appears to be the case. But then readers of this blog know that I never thought for a minute that he'd lose it. The current fetish for bipartisanship makes 'party discipline' oxymoronic."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "I should have expected this, since we are dealing with the Senate Democratic caucus. Threats of joining with Republicans have once again led to a compromise that overwhelmingly favors conservatives. Don't expect a fighting Democratic Senate over the next two years. If a group of conservative Democrats threatens to support a Republican filibuster unless their demands are met, then those demands will probably be met."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Lieberman [is] now likely to keep his gavel. And the sun will rise in the morning. [...] If this happens, Joe Lieberman will walk away as the most clever politician in all Washington. He played a game of chicken and won."

OBAMA: He Won Because His Supporters Are Idiots?

Conservative bloggers are promoting "How Obama Got Elected", an anti-Obama website created by right-wing talk show host John Ziegler. The website features a Zogby poll of 512 Obama voters and video footage of various Obama voters which suggest that Obama's voters were uninformed:

• Michelle Malkin: "How Obama got elected. Three words: Stupid people voted. Lots and lots of stupid people."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "This video, unfortunately, is not a joke. It's for real. And it sheds light, I think, on the sources of Obama's victory."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "This is your brain on hope."
• Ace Of Spades: "How Obama Got Elected. Rank ignorance. They don't know which party controls Congress, and never heard of [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid, [Rep. Barney] Frank, or [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, but damn, do they know the media-approved misinformation that [Sarah] Palin wore a $150,000 wardrobe."
• RedState's Brian Faughnan: "This is a testament -- as if one was necessary -- to what the media covered as the central issues of the campaign. Maybe in 2012 we can expect better?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "...These results show the abysmal state of media coverage of Barack Obama. It's not that the voters couldn't absorb data provided to them by the Tanning Bed Media; these voters quite obviously learned plenty about Sarah Palin. In the video, the subjects demonstrate that by assigning every stupid thing said on the campaign trail to Palin whether she said it or not. Meanwhile, no one can figure out what Barack Obama said, how he conducted his campaign, or his political history. As for the video, without the Zogby poll, it would be hilarious but without context. Anyone can find fools for 'man on the street' interviews; Jay Leno does it as a regular staple for the Tonight Show. Zogby's poll shows that Ziegler's video is no anomaly."

Liberal blogger Nate Silver criticizes pollster John Zogby for conducting such a dubious poll: "The conservative website HowObamaGotElected.com reports that it has commissioned Zogby International to conduct a poll of 512 Barack Obama voters as part of what can best be described as a viral marketing effort to discredit the intelligence of Obama supporters. [...] To my mind, this survey meets the definition of a 'push poll', which the Random House Dictionary defines as 'a seemingly unbiased telephone survey that is actually conducted by supporters of a particular candidate and disseminates negative information about an opponent.' [...] Why Zogby International has decided to accept this client and conduct a survey in this fashion is not clear. I would hope, however, that any and all clients that need legitimate polling work conducted would take their business elsewhere. These clients include C-SPAN and Reuters, two organizations with longstanding and well-deserved reputations for accuracy and neutrality..."

CLINTON: Why Does Bill Always Have To Complicate Things?

Several liberal bloggers are concerned that ex-Pres. Bill Clinton's financial ties to foreign governments could jeopardize Hillary Clinton's ability to serve as Sec/State:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "This business concerning Hillary Clinton's potential appointment as Secretary of State and the finances of Bill Clinton's foundation seems like a real issue to me. There's nothing to be done about the fact that the Clinton Foundation has, in the past, gotten large sums of money from foreign governments. But I don't really see how you could have a Secretary of State whose husband was engaged in that kind of fundraising. Or, more generally, who's involved in the kind of freelance foreign policy work that Bill does as head of the Foundation."
• Oliver Willis: "If President Clinton's entanglements are going to make it a pain in the ass, I'd rather they not do it. Secretary of State, especially post-Bush, is an important and tough job. I think Sen. Clinton would do a good job at it, but if she's going to be hampered in negotiations with the President of Flubberstan because Bill Clinton is on the board of directors for Flubber, Inc. it's a waste."

Daily Kos' Scout Finch is still strongly in favor of Obama selecting Clinton as his Sec/State: "Hillary Clinton as SoS is a win-win. And given the fact Obama has repeatedly talked of admiring [Abraham] Lincoln's ability to bring even his most bitter rivals into his administration, it makes perfect sense. It gives her an important role in the Obama administration, continues to build her foreign policy cred, and will keep her out of Senate meddling and Obama's hair."

Meanwhile, Weekly Standard blogger (and ex-McCain spokesperson) Michael Goldfarb becomes the latest neoconservative to praise Clinton: "On the issues, Clinton's a hawk. Not only did she vote to authorize the war in Iraq, she delivered her vote in style -- her floor speech on October 10, 2002, went so far as to connect Saddam [Hussein] to al Qaeda. [...] Clinton flipped on the war, but as the nomination slipped out of her reach last spring she spoke of the threats this country faces, and of the prescriptions offered by Obama, in language that would warm the hearts of neoconservatives (if we had them). [...] On matters of diplomacy, Clinton's views are not so different from those held by John McCain and most Republicans -- and they are certainly well to the right of Obama. Of course, if Clinton takes the job one expects she'll be loyal to her new boss. Though it would be extremely entertaining, we probably wouldn't see Madame Secretary working to undermine an Obama administration with recalcitrance and rogue diplomacy. But then Colin Powell was a dutiful soldier while inside the Bush administration and that still didn't prevent him from becoming a foil for the administration's opponents. It's not difficult to imagine Clinton performing a similar service for Republicans. She could be held up as the very model of a responsible Democrat, forced against her better judgment to partake in a series of reckless diplomatic escapades pursued by a more ideological president."

AUTO BAILOUT: Bankruptcy Is The Answer

Conservative bloggers are urging GOP lawmakers to oppose the proposed bailout of the Detroit automakers:

• Malkin: "The first step toward GOP redemption is to stop the automakers' bailout and roll back the creeping conversion of the Crap Sandwich 2.0 into an all-purpose bailout bonanza for every last American industry and corporate special interest in financial peril."
• RedState's Robert Bluey: "Few would disagree that the Big Three are in trouble. Last month GM's sales dropped 45%, Chrysler's were down 35% and Ford's fell 30%. But rather than bailing out these companies, lawmakers should shoo them away. There is another option: It's called bankruptcy. And despite what the bailout proponents say, it's really the only viable way for Detroit to remake itself and survive. Feeding the beast won't fix the problem."
• Faughnan: "It's clear that Democrats in Washington don't want to 'save' the automakers. Rather, they want to run a car company and ensure that tens of thousands of UAW members continue to pay their union dues. [...] It's pretty clear that the best way to make America's automakers competitive again is to force them to undergo major restructuring -- probably through bankruptcy."
• Commentary's John Steele Gordon: "What's needed to save the Big Three, as distinct from the industry as a whole, is to destroy the poisonous legacy of the cartel days. And that is best accomplished -- as Jennifer [Rubin] has noted -- in bankruptcy court, not with a bailout."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Who Defines The Center?

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru:

"Tod Lindberg argues that conservatives are fooling themselves if they think that the U.S. is a 'center-right nation.' Me, I'm not sure what it would mean for the country to be either 'center-right' or 'center-left.' I can see the point of saying that the country is 'center right' if the point is that we are, compared to most developed countries, a bit more religious, free-market, and nationalistic in orientation. If that's all it means to say 'center right,' though, we could probably go through a long period of political domination by liberals and still qualify. And I'm not sure what else the phrase could mean."

LEST WE FORGET: Joe The Plumber Cashes In

Columbia Journalism Review's Megan Garber (h/t digby):

"Joe the Plumber's latest small business? Apparently: himself. JTP's deeply researched, carefully edited, thoughtful, and not at all hastily-put-together-to-capitalize-on-his-media-celebrity-before-it-expires treatise on The American Dream -- written 'with' spiritual novelist Thomas N. Tabback -- is slated to be released December 1. Yes, of this year. Oh, and it will be titled, humbly and rather delightfully, Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream.

To celebrate -- and to ensure that copies of the book are sold! -- YOU THE PEOPLE can now obtain a Freedom Membership from Joe's hastily-put-together-to-capitalize-on-his-media-celebrity-before-it-expires Web site, SecureOurDream.com. The Membership, like Freedom itself, ain't free...but the $14.95 yearly fee practically pays for itself! With it, you'll get:

1) Total Access to 'Joe The Forum' where you may chat directly with Joe

2) Subscription to the 'Joe The Blog' monthly newsletter

3) Free Shipping on all 'Joe The Plumber' merchandise

4) Free Signed Copy of Joe's forthcoming book 'Joe The Plumber' -- Fighting for the American Dream

5) Become an integral part of an American movement to restore our government to the people"

11/17: Chairman Lieberman? Secretary Clinton?

With less than 24 hours before Senate Dems decide by secret ballot whether or not to take away ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman's chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, the netroots are making their final lobbying push. Senators who spoke out against Lieberman (such as VT Sen. Pat Leahy, VT Sen. Bernie Sanders, and ND Sen. Byron Dorgan) were on the receiving end of considerable netroots praise this past weekend. Meanwhile, lefty bloggers are restating their various arguments for why Lieberman should lose his chairmanship.

In other political news, bloggers are buzzing about the rumors that Pres.-elect Barack Obama has offered NY Sen. Hillary Clinton the Sec/State position. Most liberal bloggers (including some of Clinton's former critics) are comfortable with the prospect of Clinton serving as Obama's Sec/State, while some are enthusiastic. However, other liberal bloggers are concerned about what they perceive to be Clinton's hawkish foreign policy views. For this same reason, several neoconservative bloggers prefer Clinton to the other candidates rumored to be on Obama's short list (namely, MA Sen. John Kerry and NM Gov. Bill Richardson).

LIEBERMAN: The Netroots Want His Gavel

Liberal bloggers have a variety of reasons for wanting to remove Lieberman as chairman of the Homeland Security committee, as the following posts illustrate:

• Open Left's David Sirota: "The removal of Joe Lieberman from his committee post isn't about revenge -- it's about political pragmatism. In specific, it's about making sure a guy who has repeatedly displayed his deep personal and irrational hatred for Barack Obama doesn't have the subpoena power to embark on witch hunts against President Obama."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "Just for the record, Joe Lieberman not only worked for John McCain's election as president, but he also supported [MN Sen.] Norm Coleman's campaign and endorsed [ME Sen.] Susan Collins' re-election. Keep in mind that Lieberman did this while serving as chairman of the homeland security committee, and there's no reason to expect that he won't continue to support Iraq war supporting Republicans. [...] To reward Lieberman's behavior with another term as chairman of the homeland security committee would not only strengthen Lieberman's hand and validate his campaign against the Democratic Party and for the Iraq war, it would be the height of weakness on the part of senate Democrats. It would be a sign that they don't really care about ending the war."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "To my mind, the crucial issue here is whether or not Lieberman has done a good job as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. If a good chair had done what he did -- if, say, [House Gov't Reform committee chairman] Henry Waxman had unaccountably spent the summer and fall campaigning against Democratic nominees for President and the Senate -- I'd be torn. But Lieberman has not been a good chair. [...] Lieberman, whose committee is responsible for investigating government, declined to hold hearings on the response to Katrina, saying he didn't want to 'play gotcha'. Likewise, he didn't want to investigate Blackwater or other Iraq contractors. As far as the oversight part of his committee chairmanship, he was missing in action. Oversight matters. It mattered during the Bush administration, and it will matter during an Obama administration."

Firedoglake's Swopa: "Holy Joe's defenders have tried to grab the high moral ground against criticisms that Lieberman hasn't been a loyal enough Democrat or might misuse his continued chairmanship of the Homeland Security commission by saying that ousting him would 'hurt the message of bipartisanship and unity' that president-elect Barack Obama wants to send. But that's exactly the principle Lieberman violated with his insinuations that Obama consciously betrayed the best interests of the U.S. and American troops in Iraq for the sake of his political career. And it's that principle which Democrats should explicitly stand behind as they strip him of his power."

LIEBERMAN II: Vermont Represents

Liberal bloggers are praising Sen. Leahy after he said that Lieberman should lose his committee chairmanship:

• Atrios: "I appreciate that newly minted Senators might be a bit reticent on the whole Lieberman situation, but kudos to Senator Leahy for acknowledging that Joe has been a very bad boy indeed."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "A big step: Leahy, chair of the powerful Judiciary Committee, has come out against Lieberman keeping his gavel atop Homeland Security. [...] Leahy nails it: in any normal world, it makes perfect sense for Lieberman to lose his chairmanship of such a powerful committee. But this is Lieberworld, where comity always comes first, and bad faith is ignored willfully."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Kudos to Leahy. We'll learn on Tuesday how many other members of the caucus agree."
• Firedoglake's Jame Hamsher: "Imagine that, someone leading -- instead of acting like a spineless mush-mouth."

Balloon Juice's John Cole jokingly suggests that Leahy's statement means that Lieberman's chairmanship is probably safe: "If recent history is any guide, I think we can safely say that this issue has been settled and that Joe Lieberman's chairmanship is...safe. Every time Leahy and [WI Sen. Russ] Feingold get in a vulcan mindmeld with the progressive wing, we can almost bet that the beltway wing/GOP lite/business as usual crowd of the Democratic caucus are about to send them down the river."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are also praising the other senators who publicly criticized Lieberman's behavior:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas praises Sen. Sanders: "Vermont represents. [...] When the other independent who caucuses with Democrats says you're an idiot unworthy of holding a committee chairmanship, it says something. This isn't a 'partisan' Democrat speaking."
• Hamsher praises Sen. Dorgan: "Dorgan has been tireless in his efforts to root out government waste. The waste, graft and taxpayer looting that Lieberman has protected from investigation as Chair of the Homeland Security Committee no doubt scalds him."

CLINTON: The Right Choice

Several liberal bloggers who supported Clinton in the primary are enthusiastic about the prospect of Clinton serving as Obama's Sec/State:

• Ex-VT Gov. Madeleine M. Kunin: "As a former Hillary supporter I would be delighted to see Hillary Clinton as the next Secretary of State. And, I know that thousands of women, not only those who voted for her, would agree. In just a short period of time, the position of Secretary of State has been filled by two capable women: Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice. It seems only fitting for President-elect Obama to follow this tradition, but not only because she's a woman, but because she is the best person for the job. She has traveled widely as First Lady, established good relationships with world leaders, and gained universal respect."
• MyDD's Natasha Chart: "It may come up in a discussion near you that Hillary Clinton is being offered the position of Secretary of State, and that you should be particularly alarmed about this because she voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In a standalone resolution. I didn't like that vote at all and was angry about it at the time, but it isn't clear to me that this is a policy difference between Clinton and Obama. [...] Considering that [Obama] sponsored a similar bill and didn't show up to vote on the standalone amendment, I don't understand the assumption that Obama would have voted differently than she did. [...] As far as having Clinton as SoS, I figure she'd do a good job. I also believe that she'd be willing to do what she was asked to do or she wouldn't accept it, because that's how these positions go. She should do what she feels is best for her career as a public servant, which I hope will be long. [...] Lastly, as a point massively in her favor, she's a strong advocate for women's rights."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I am really intrigued by Clinton ascending to Secretary of State. I think on many levels it's a perfect role for her, as she ran partly on rebuilding our image abroad and she and Bill [Clinton] are beloved around the world. It also just sort of feels right in a certain way. I do understand people's reservations about her more hawkish tendencies and the attacks she levied against him in the primary over diplomacy, but I think their differences are actually much less stark than they seemed during a contest that was about making distinctions with your opponent. And I think at the very least, Clinton has proven to be a team player and I have no doubt that as Secretary of State she would advance the policies of Barack Obama's around the world, not her own."

CLINTON II: Secretary Clinton? Fine By Me.

Several liberal bloggers who supported Obama in the primary are also fine with the prospect of Clinton becoming Sec/State:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Some progressives are worried that Clinton voted for a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, thus making it difficult for her to hold the job. However, given that the other names most commonly floated are Kerry and [IN Sen. Dick] Lugar, I fail to see how Clinton is inferior to either option. [...] I don't care about the Clinton vs. Obama battle anymore. I can't even believe some people are still living through it. I care about the progressive vs. centrist struggle, and that is not, and never has been, the same thing as Obama vs. Clinton."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "As for the [idea] that Hillary would be opposed by the Netroots because of her position on Iraq, I'm not so sure. I'd have no problem with her as Secretary of State, but then again, I wasn't really looking for an apology for her Iraq vote (I did, however, wish she'd have acknowledged that in retrospect the vote was a bad idea). And more generally, Hillary as Secretary of State would do whatever her boss, the president, asked her to do -- so she wouldn't be freelancing on Iraq policy, she'd be implementing Obama's Iraq policy. And to some degree, who better than a Democrat who has been hawkish on Iraq to lead the way out of Iraq[?]"

digby just wants Obama's Sec/State to be a Dem: "I don't care if Hillary becomes Secretary of State. I assume Obama will run his foreign policy the same no matter who it is. I do think it's preferable for members of his administration to be beholden at least in part to the Democratic side of the aisle if only to show that it's not only Republicans who have credibility, especially in foreign affairs. If Obama keeps [Def. Sec. Robert] Gates at defense (which I sincerely hope he does not) then I think he has to pick a Democrat for State and pull from the more progressive ranks for the national security posts at CIA and elsewhere. The same is true for the economic jobs. Otherwise, he's just reinforcing the GOP's main argument that only Republicans can be trusted in such positions."

CLINTON III: Are You Sure About This?

Several liberal bloggers have reservations about the prospect of Clinton becoming Sec/State:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "...Surely I wouldn't be the first to observe that this would seem like an odd pairing. Clinton and Obama are both formidable political leaders and, as we saw during the primaries, they have very similar ideas about the vast majority of public policy areas. But Obama thinks Clinton's support for invading Iraq in 2002-2003 showed bad judgment and Clinton thinks Obama's stated willingness to hold direct, high-level talks with Iran without preconditions is 'naive and irresponsible.' That's not to say it's a bad idea -- what matters is ideas moving forward, not things that have been said in the past. But the specific policy area at issue seems to be one in which the two of them aren't all that well-aligned."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "In late December of last year The New York Times wrote a lengthy article about the various donors to the Clinton Foundation, and the conflicts of interest (real or apparent) they might create for Sen. Clinton should she become president. [...] The Foundation's contributors include not only a number of heads of state but also a lot of high-flying businessmen who play the game so high in the stratosphere that what we normally consider foreign policy questions routinely play into their business interests. Now, Secretary of State is not president. But in the foreign policy realm, it is as close as you get. So how does this all play out if she's nominated to serve as Secretary of State? Does the same going-forward disclosure policy apply?"
• The Reality-Based Community's Steven M. Teles: "Frankly, I just don't trust Hillary. There is no evidence based on the historical record that she is a competent manager (and plenty of evidence to the contrary -- her campaign and the Clinton health care process are only two examples), or has the best interest of our chief executive at heart."

Firedoglake's Ian Welsh sees pros and cons: "It seems Obama has offered Clinton State. It's an interesting choice, and there are a lot of Progressives who won't like it much, given Clinton's record of supporting the Iraq war and voting for the stand alone resolution making Iran's Republican Guards a terrorist organization, which made a part of the Iranian military 'terrorists'. Clinton was definitely more hawkish than Obama was during the primary season, and during her career. [...] Clinton does offer one big advantage as Secretary of State: the Clinton name. The Clintons are loved overseas, and there is no one else in America (other than her husband, who will presumably be by her side in any case) who would demonstrate more clout than having Hillary Clinton arrive in your country. Likewise she already has relationships with many world leaders and doesn't have to build up that trust from scratch. Clinton can hit the ground running, and assuming Obama makes it clear that he's backing her, she can speak with more authority than perhaps anyone else could, on his behalf."

CLINTON IV: The Least Bad Choice

In what is probably a testament to the widespread perception that Clinton is more hawkish than Obama, several neoconservative bloggers think she's the best Sec/State candidate on Obama's short list:

• Commentary's Max Boot: "I would nevertheless like to add my voice to the general chorus acclaiming this -- if it happens -- as a smart move. I have gotten to know New York's junior senator a bit over the years, from serving with her on an advisory panel at the U.S. Joint Forces Command, and I have found her to be serious, incisive, and nonpartisan in her approach to some of the most thorny issues confronting the U.S. military. [...] I was a bit dismayed during the Democratic primaries to see her moving to the left on a host of issues after having established a generally centrist reputation in the Senate. But I am ready to write that off as an election-year aberration. Even Joe Lieberman, after all, lurched left in 2000, when he was in the thick of national politics. And it is to Hillary's credit that she never went nearly as far left as the most rabid Democratic partisans wanted her to do. She refused, for instance, to call for an immediate pullout from Iraq (as did another possible secretary of state and onetime presidential candidate: Bill Richardson). If Obama settles on her, it will confirm the moderate tenor of his other rumored appointments. The appointment of a John Kerry or Bill Richardson would signal a disquieting move to the left."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Her selection would offer one clear advantage: she would be a clear signal that all that happy talk about wooing the world through personal charm and empathy for the world's bad actors was just fodder for the campaign. Picking her would be a vote in favor of hard-headed realism. Clinton didn't buy for a moment that tea with Raul Castro was a peachy idea, and she wasn't about to lose sleep if the U.N. didn't look favorably upon the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. And that's why many conservatives are hoping that she's the pick. Frankly, all the other likely picks are infinitely worse."

RNC: Man Of Steele, Impervious To Race Cards

Ex-MD LG Michael Steele held a conference call with conservative bloggers on Friday to discuss his bid for RNC Chairman. Steele reportedly argued that his skin color would make it more difficult for Obama to "play the race card" against him, which (according to Steele) Obama had done while competing against Clinton and McCain:

• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "Steele held himself up as an effective conservative messenger, someone who would stand up for the party's core values but be able to communicate them in non-threatening ways to audiences that have traditionally been unreceptive to Republicans. Steele criticized the McCain campaign and the GOP more generally for letting the Obama campaign 'play the race card' with impunity. Steele pointed to Obama's effectiveness against the Clintons in the primaries and also McCain's fear of raising the Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright issue in the general election. Steel argued that it would be difficult to play the race card against him. Yet he also disavowed the idea that his color (Steele, like Obama, is black) was a reason to elect him chairman of the RNC."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Regarding bloggers, Steele said, 'we have under-utilized a tremendously valuable resource.' He also added that he's usually awake and on the internet as late as 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. [...] Steele also warned that Republicans shouldn't 'soft-pedal' our attacks on Barack Obama, 'just because the President of the United States is a Black man.' This, of course, presents the argument that Steele -- an African-American -- could be a more effective critic of Obama than could his white Republican colleagues. Responding to a follow-up question I asked him, Steele responded that 'the Obama campaign played the race card, and it worked beautifully.' He said it hurt Bill Clinton, 'tripped up Hillary Clinton,' and that it also 'stymied' John McCain because he wouldn't mention Reverend Wright. Steele argued that in taking Rev. Wright off the table, McCain surrendered the one issue that might have helped him win because 'it went to the core' of Obama's character."

Hot Air's Allahpundit doesn't buy Steele's argument: "Having him up top could reduce the Absolute Moral Authority deficit superficially, but will it really 'avoid the tedious race-card ploy'? Remember, this is a guy whom the nutroots have been known to photoshop as Sambo for the crime of being black while conservative. If anything, I suspect, electing him will feed racial politics by leading the left to frame The One as 'authentically black' vis-a-vis the Republican 'house slave' or whatever progressive witticism they've coined for him this month. Which isn't a reason to vote against Steele, needless to say: On the contrary, maybe that's the point -- to bait them and let them show off how 'enlightened' they really are. They won't be able to resist."

Meanwhile, Allahpundit's co-blogger Ed Morrissey thinks Steele has gotten off to a good start in his bid for RNC chairman: "Republicans need someone with national name recognition who can do all of that as well as reorganize the RNC, modernize its communications, and find effective candidates for Congress. The chair has to be ubiquitous, appearing everywhere and every day, making himself heard on every single issue. Only a few people already have that kind of personality, and Steele is already busily proving that he qualifies."

OBAMA: Hypocrisy We Can Believe In

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of hypocrisy after the Washington Post reported that "more than a dozen members of President-elect Obama's fast-growing transition team have worked as federally registered lobbyists within the past four years":

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Change We Can Believe In, eh? Tell me another one. Oh, and by the way: Barack Obama is not the Messiah. He's just another politician."
• Rubin: "Welcome to reality. For some of us, the whole 'New Politics' pitch was always a canard, a cynical sales pitch. Barack Obama didn't eschew misleading ads. He didn't keep to his word on public financing. And he hasn't chased those dreaded lobbyists out of Washington. This should come as no surprise. This is how politics is done."
• Morrissey: "There is nothing inherently wrong with lobbying. There is plenty wrong with hypocrisy, especially on the grand scale committed by Barack Obama during this campaign. He regularly indulged in the populist demonization of lobbyists and claimed to lead a new movement to purify Washington of their eeeeevil influences. Now that he has the power, Obama has no problem working with lobbyists for fraudulently run mortgage giants and drug makers, smear artists, and asbestos-lawsuit defenders. That's change that 63 million suckers believed in."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Does Ideology Matter?

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"American elections are by and large not referendums on ideologies. They are contests of personality, optics, and performance in office. This goes the same for when they win or we win -- whether it's 1980, 1994, or 2006/2008. The Democrats did not have to change their ideology to win; they needed to change the charisma level of their standardbearer and needed an economic crisis and a prolonged unpopular war.

Because ideology doesn't matter in elections, and so much of politics depends on ephemeral characteristics like personality and who was in when the economy cycled south, the parties paradoxically have relatively wide latitude to govern ideologically without fear of public backlash once they get in. This is why cries of 'socialism' were so ineffective during the campaign, and likewise why Bush got most of what he wanted in his early Presidency, even before 9/11. If Barack Obama is able to adopt far-left policies and make it look like he's making the trains run on time, the country will enter a new liberal era not by virtue of public opinion, but by acquiesence to what appears to be competent governance. In 1993-94, the Clintons tried to move the country to the left and looked incompetent in the process. It was the latter more than the former that opened a door for conservatives in 1994."

LEST WE FORGET: In Hindsight, It's Easy To See Where Things Started To Unravel...

From Overheard in the Office:

Event planner: Don't you think we should have background music?
Manager: That would be too expensive.
Event planner: What about just one person playing a harp?
Manager: Do you know someone?
Event planner: Yeah. I know a harpoonist.

11/14: Senators In The Spotlight

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about IN Sen. Even Bayh's suggestion that ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman should be allowed to retain his committee chairmanship if he offers a "sincere apology" for his behavior. Lefty bloggers think Bayh's statement is "an important development" because he's a Lieberman ally. They're urging him to follow through and vote against Lieberman if the latter refuses to apologize (which they think is likely).

Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are keeping up a steady stream of complaints in advance of the looming MN Senate recount. Righty bloggers are accusing Al Franken's campaign of making "a series of deceitful allegations" in an effort to "steal the election". They're also accusing MN Sec/State Mark Ritchie of being a Franken shill. In yet another indication of the growing influence of bloggers, the NRSC is featuring a number of these blog posts on a new website they created in order to keep "a watchful eye on Minnesota's Senate recount."

LIEBERMAN: Bayh Wants An Apology

Liberal bloggers are discussing Bayh's recent appearance on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show, in which Bayh "called on [Lieberman] to apologize for his attacks on Barack Obama, saying doing so would temporarily let him retain a key chairmanship position next Congress". Lefty bloggers think Bayh's statement is significant because he is a strong Lieberman supporter, but they don't expect Lieberman to apologize:

• Daily Kos' Jed L: "Bayh could be blowing smoke up our you-know-what. He may have no intention of following through on his demand of Lieberman. But at least Evan Bayh, one of Lieberman's strongest supporters, is now on record saying that Lieberman needs to apologize."
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "Can we expect Bayh to vote against Lieberman retaining the chair if [an apology] isn't forthcoming? I'm doubting it, which means Bayh was probably blowing smoke up your ass with that one."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I think this is an important development in the Lieberman saga. So Evan Bayh, one of Lieberman's strongest boosters, is saying that Joe should apologize. And this can't be a weak 'behind closed doors' type of apology. It needs to be an apology to all Democrats, public, sincere and heartfelt. Of course, we all know Lieberman never will issue such an apology. He doesn't think he did anything wrong. His megalomania is such that it prevents him from every showing any humility or regret. So will Bayh still whip his fellow Democratic senators in favor of Lieberman if Lieberman refuses to offer that heartfelt public apology? He'd look foolish if he did so. Then again, Lieberman has never given a damn about making his allies look foolish. Bayh may end up being just the latest in a long line of people burned by Lieberman's insufferable sanctimony."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Lieberman to apologize for being such a prick? It's what Lieberman supporter Evan Bayh seems to think we have in store, anyway. [...It will] never happen."

LIEBERMAN II: Fool Me Once, Shame On You; Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me

Liberal bloggers are pushing back against Marc Ambinder's criticism of their campaign against Lieberman:

"This is a fun distraction, but isn't the bloggy left having a major overreaction to the idea of keeping Lieberman in his current position? It's true that he'll have subpoena power over the new administration, but the idea that he'll be a serious political player in the coming term is frankly laughable. If Joe Lieberman wants to wage a one-man crusade against President Obama, he can certainly do so, but it's hard to imagine him winning such a fight, or even making himself look good by losing. Most likely, Obama will bring Lieberman back into the fold graciously, and he'll vote with the Democrats, and occasionally go on Meet The Press to express his disappointment about something or other. He seems to enjoy being a scold, but there's no evidence he has the the belly to be Ken Starr."

• MyDD's Josh Orton: "It's amazing: even after Lieberman's operated in bad faith for years, there are still some who insist on pretending he'll start acting differently. It won't happen -- Lieberman has spent the last two years positioning himself as a contrarian power-broker, and he's not going to stop now. In fact, if the Democratic caucus ignores what Joe did during the election, it might embolden him more. Why wouldn't it? Lieberman smeared Democrats up and down this cycle, and yet anyone in a position to notice insists on jamming their heads in the sand. And by the way -- no one's saying that Lieberman is the next Ken Starr. But it's undeniable that Joe waged a full-frontal assault on his party's credibility, and yet he'll return to his gavel and subpoena power under the seniority he enjoys in that very party. Anyone that assumes Lieberman is as classy as [NE Sen. Chuck] Hagel -- i.e. someone who expresses 'disappointment' without acting maliciously -- is in denial."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "If Ambinder and [Chris] Cillizza, and apparently Bayh and [IL Sen. Dick] Durbin and even Obama, feel that defecting to the other party, helping their candidates win office, and calling your own party's candidate a terrorist sympathizer is really not that big an offense, then the next time the Republicans call the Democrats unpatriotic America-haters I don't want hear a peep out of the Democrats or the media. After all, what [MN Rep.] Michelle Bachmann did was really just a high school prank. And is it time to rehabilitate [ex-GA Sen.] Zell Miller too?"

Meanwhile, several bloggers are buzzing about a new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll indicating that Lieberman's popularity has plummeted in CT:

• Moulitsas: "Lieberman can threaten all he wants to caucus with Republicans if he doesn't get everything he wants. Fact is, he's in shaky electoral territory, and it would only get worse if he decided to become a Republican. Call his bluff. Give him another committee chairmanship in an area where his ideology matches up with the Democratic Party. He won't leave the Democratic caucus. It would be career suicide."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Remarkable numbers from Kos. [...] Senate Democrats have leverage right now, and Lieberman knows it. That situation won't last forever, and the moment Lieberman can begin scewing over Obama, he will. It's time to throw him to a lower committee or kick him out of the caucus."

CLINTON: Secretary Clinton?

Several liberal bloggers like the idea of Obama choosing Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State:

• Aravosis: "Hillary [is] being considered for Sec of State. Good, I like that. I think someone with a 'Clinton' name could do a lot of good restoring the world's faith in America."
• TAPPED's Dana Goldstein: "If given a formal role in the Obama administration, Hillary would rise to the occasion as a team player. She has a detailed understand of global conflicts and has met many of the players involved. She'd be greeted enthusiastically around the world, where the only American political phenom who could have possibly overtaken affection for the Clintons was Obama. [...] The downside to Hillary as secretary of state is losing her strong voice for women's issues and health care reform in the Senate, where she has the potential to grow into a kind of Teddy Kennedy figure on domestic policy. [...] There's also the question of whether she could effectively manage a large bureaucracy, considering her messy campaign. Secretary of state is more a figurehead than day-to-day manager, though, and with the right people working for her, I think Hillary could do an admirable job."

TPM's Josh Marshall doesn't understand why Clinton would want this position: "Secretaries of State don't usually last more than a single presidential term. And sometimes they don't make it that long. So, for the life of me, I do not understand why Hillary Clinton would want to give up what is in all likelihood a senate seat for life to run the State Department for Barack Obama."

Ezra Klein doesn't think it will happen: "I'm not taking the rumors that Hillary Clinton is being considered for Secretary of State particularly seriously. Obama's main argument against Hillary Clinton in the primaries was that she was wed to a Washington establishment of cautious and stale foreign policy thinkers who'd helped her blunder into, among other things, supporting the war in Iraq. Elevating her to the country's top foreign policy job would be an odd resolution to that argument. [...] But respect necessitates that Obama leaks her as a contender for it. Indeed, if she were going to get it, my hunch is there would be no leaks. The fact that she's being publicly considered is probably pretty good evidence that she's been privately ruled out."

Conservative blogger Amanda Carpenter thinks it would be hypocritical of Obama to choose Clinton as his Sec/State: "Barack Obama is making all his potential staffers submit an exhaustive questionaire about their personal lives, finances, etc, right? So how is it he could POSSIBLY pick Hillary Clinton, whose husband Bill [Clinton] has refused to disclose ANY financial information about his multi-million international foundation? [...] If Obama wants to be all about transparency and disclosure, he can't pick Hill."

MN SEN: Florida 2000 Redux

As the MN recount looms, conservative bloggers are keeping up a steady stream of complaints about the conduct of Franken's campaign:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "The Al Franken campaign is using a series of lawsuits to try to bully the ex-comedian's way into the United States Senate."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "[Franken's lawyers] want to browbeat voters and county boards into generating votes that don't exist in order to steal the election. The Minnesota courts need to shut Franken down fast and hard. The recount should only involve the ballots certified as legitimate by the counties on Election Day. Franken can't win with the legitimate ballots alone, though, and apparently he has no problem with stealing an election with illegitimate ballots instead."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Al Franken is waging a campaign to overturn the results of Minnesota's Senate election based on a series of deceitful allegations. On this score the fraudulent sob story involving the 84-year-old stroke victim whose ballot was supposedly rejected because of an issue regarding her signature may serve as representative. Another such myth, retailed by the AP's Brian Bakst, is premised on a supposed Franken 'undervote.' Ed Morrissey takes pains to demonstrate the fraudulence of this line of attack for anyone unfamiliar with Minnesota's voting system."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Interestingly, the Franken Campaign publicly stated they will have 1,250 lawyers on the recount. As someone close to the recount emailed me, 'that's roughly 6 attorneys for every ballot they want to try to get to overturn the outcome of the election.' It seems like a lot of attorneys just to make sure the recount is fair and square..."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "I spent six years as an elections lawyer. I handled a lot of very wacked election canvasses and recounts. One thing they all had in common: when new votes were found, they generally went both ways -- a few for one candidate and a few for the other candidate. It didn't quite follow the polling, but then close races only happen at the 50-50 margin. Here's something that never happened: the votes did not all go 100% for one candidate except in the two instances where there was only one misplaced ballot discovered. In Minnesota, though, the votes are all going for Al Franken -- pretty much all 600 of them. That defies statistical probability."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Daily Kos' BarbinMD pushes back: "This is really pitiful. Republicans are in such a panic over the possibility that they will lose another senate seat when the legally-mandated recount in Minnesota is completed, they are doing everything they can to taint the results before the process even begins. The desperate moves began the day after the election when [MN Sen.] Norm Coleman declared himself the winner and laughably suggested that Al Franken forego any recount, and now, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has set up a website for 'keeping a watchful eye' on the recount. And their idea of keeping a close eye on the race? By posting deep thoughts from various conservative blogs, and deranged, fact-free opinion pieces. [...] Given the all-out blitz of false charges, innuendo, and disinformation the Republicans have been peddling, it's clear that they don't think Norm Coleman's 206 vote lead is going to hold up."

PROP 8: Cool It, Protesters

Conservative bloggers are criticizing the recent activities of critics of CA's Prop 8, which banned gay marriage in the state:

• Morrissey: "From profane billboards to violent protests, the anti-8 demonstrators have focused their ire on Mormons, and now two envelopes of white powder have turned up in the mail at the Mormon Temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City. [...] This fortnight-long temper tantrum certainly won't help the anti-8 cause when the inevitable referendum appears to reverse the constitutional amendment Californians added in this election. I'd expect to see that on the ballot every two years from now on, but if its backers keep acting like lunatics, they can expect to lose by greater margins in the future."
• Glenn Reynolds: "Can I suggest that folks unhappy about Proposition 8 would be better-served by pushing for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act than by protesting at Mormon Temples and stomping on crosses? Lashing out in anger feels good to some people, I guess, but that's about it."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "The LA Times covers the mass protests against the passage of Proposition 8, which amends the California constitution and clarifies that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman. [...] What's worth noting is that since the proposition passed, some of its opponents have behaved in a way that would be universally condemned if, say, conservatives had behaved in the same manner about Obama's victory."

Several righty bloggers are calling on Obama to intervene:

• Michelle Malkin: "Pssst. Hey, 'Lightworker.' Yeah, you, 'Mr. Soul-fixer.' Bearer of 'Hope and Change.' Across the country, there are broken souls in need of fixing. They are the opponents of Proposition 8, California's traditional marriage initiative, which passed 52-48 (the same margin you won by, Lightworker). Perhaps you would care to weigh in and work your healing magic on the anti-Prop. 8 rabble-rousers who continue to wreak havoc on Mormon churches in several cities and states and blacklisting peaceful voters who supported the ballot measure. It is getting very ugly out there and no one in the Democratic leadership has stepped up to condemn the insane rage, to borrow a phrase. Where art thou, Lightworker?"
• RedState's Moe Lane: "For the love of God, President-elect Obama, do something about this. Before it gets worse."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Don't Overreact To Defeat, Republicans

AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain blasts Jennifer Rubin's critique of the GOP, in which she argues that "fiscal austerity" and "emphasis on social conservatism" have limited appeal:

"...To urge that the GOP abandon both limited government and social conservatism (jettisoning both Grover Norquist and James Dobson, as it were) doesn't exactly strike me as a winning formula. Minus both social and fiscal issues, what do Republicans have left -- invading foreign countries to promote global democracy? That's really worked well so far, hasn't it?

Republicans should try to learn a lesson from the Democrats. In terms of basic political philosophy and policy, Barack Obama is indistinguishable from Howard Dean. But Obama is charismatic in a way that Dean was not, and voters in 2008 were sick to death of Republicans in a way they were not in 2004. After successive defeats in 2002 and 2004, Democrats kept their powder dry, improved their game, and were ready to score victories in 2006 and 2008.

Finally, as Jim Antle pointed out yesterday, Republican 'Reformists' -- I prefer the term 'Young Turks,' since it is broader and less ideological -- do themselves no favors by offering criticisms that sound suspiciously like RINO mating calls. We've already got one pro-gay-marriage, pro-abortion party, and we've already got two pro-amnesty parties, so those aren't exactly 'new ideas.' Soi-dissant 'Reformists' who couch their criticism in such terms might get published at the New York Times, but they're unlikely to gain much influence among the rank-and-file of the GOP."

LEST WE FORGET: Catchphrase From 'The Love Guru' Overheard

From The Onion:

"ST. CLOUD, MN -- A catchphrase from The Love Guru, comedian Mike Myers' latest film, which follows the exploits of a self-help mentor tasked with reuniting a professional hockey player with his wife, was overheard at a local bar, stunned witnesses reported Monday. 'I didn't see who was saying it, but I think it was that part from the trailer where Justin Timberlake comes into the scene wearing a Speedo and Mike Myers says, "It looks like he's smuggling a schnauzer,"' said a visibly distraught Richard Finestra, 28. 'Who the hell is going around quoting from that movie? Oh God -- and I recognized the line. What does that say about me?' The nation's film experts have urged Americans to remain calm, saying that the statistical likelihood of the movie ever being casually referenced again is roughly 1 in 300,000,000."

11/13: Netroots To Senate Dems: Stand Up For Yourselves!

Liberal bloggers aren't letting up in their aggressive effort to convince Senate Dems to remove ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. However, they're growing increasingly pessimistic about their chances of succeeding, in light of the fact that (1.) several top Senate Dems are lobbying their colleagues in support of Lieberman, and (2.) the Senate's #2 Dem (and close Barack Obama ally) Dick Durbin reportedly wants Lieberman to keep his chairmanship. The netroots aren't going down without a fight, however, and they're blasting Senate Dems for "cower[ing] like beaten dogs" and "hav[ing] no spine". Lefty bloggers are especially critical of Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid, whom they consider weak and ineffectual. Markos Moulitsas delivers a warning to Reid:

"If Lieberman is rewarded for this behavior and keeps his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, it'll be on Reid's head. He either runs the Senate, or he doesn't. And if he's so weak that Lieberman survives, then he doesn't deserve to run the caucus, or, frankly, to hold his seat."

LIEBERMAN: Why Are We Rewarding A Traitor?

Liberal bloggers continue to urge Senate Dems to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security committee, but they're growing increasingly pessimistic about the chances of this actually happening:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Lieberman and his whippers argue that stripping him of Homeland Security would be 'punishment', and that Democrats should be forgiving of all the gleeful right-wing slams Lieberman delivered against Obama and Democrats over the past two years. Of course, committee assignments generally go to those who helped the party gain its majorities. Otherwise, why 'punish' [OK Sen.] James Inhofe by removing him from the Senate Environment and Public Works committee? Why 'punish' Republicans, now that the Senate is an even bigger Democratic place, by stripping them of staff, budget, and seats? Why? Because to the victor go the spoils. It's called democracy, and the people have made their preferences felt at the ballot box. If they wanted the Lieberman version of DC, they would've voted for McCain. [...] Throw in the fact that Lieberman's tenure at the committee has been an abject failure -- zero hearings into the Bush's administration's mismanagement of homeland security matters or Katrina -- and you have zero reason beyond bullshit Senate collegiality to keep him where he wants to be. The American people have spoken -- they wanted change. Senate Democrats, as usual, appear tone deaf to the wishes of the people, and ready to once again capitulate."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Good governance is going to be about more than passing new legislation, it's going to be about cleaning up the mess that has been made over the past 8 years. [...] The only way we're going to find out about these abuses, and right them, is if our elected officials accept that responsibility. Not only is Joe Lieberman not doing that job, as Chairman of the Department of Homeland Security Committee he's keeping anyone else from doing it. [...] Is his continued happiness worth the cost of healthcare? Of the environment? Of putting Americans back to work? Of reducing our dependence on oil and getting the economy back on its feet? Allowing Lieberman to retain control of a committee where he has done nothing but suppress meaningful oversight is going to be an awfully bitter pill to swallow when we're told that the price of 'change' we all thought we were voting for is going to be too high."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "After winning a mandate for change, why in the world would Senate Democrats choose a defender of the old guard to be one of their chief spokesmen and policymakers? Aren't elections supposed to have consequences? Nobody is saying Joe Lieberman ought to be excommunicated. But the public voted for change, and they deserve to get it. Next week, Senate Democrats should listen to the voters."

Other liberal bloggers are warning that Senate Dems are making a mistake by allowing Lieberman to remain chairman of the Homeland Security committee:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I wonder what happens if, in six months, Lieberman starts launching partisan witch hunts against the Obama White House, and Senate Dems decide it's time to take Lieberman's gavel away. How's that going to look? An independent senator starts asking pesky questions of a Democratic president and White House allies decide to sack the one doing the asking? Senate Democrats are not only making a mistake that they'll regret, they're making a mistake that will be hard to correct later."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "It looks like Lieberman will be chair of the Homeland Security Committee and have subpoena power. I had hoped the Senate would make its decision without pressure from the President-elect, since a supine Congressional delegation is a huge problem even when it's a Democrat in the White House. But that is not to be, and our new President-elect has used political capital to help a very neoconservative Joe Lieberman remain both within the Democratic caucus and the chair of an important committee on national security. It's worth noting that Reid was on the side of Democratic primary voters but that most Democrats in the Senate and President-elect Obama were not. It's a choice, they made it, I hope the price they extracted from Lieberman was worth it."

LIEBERMAN II: Thank You, Sir, May I Have Another?

Now that Lieberman appears to have "some serious momentum" in his bid to save his chairmanship, liberal bloggers are furiously denouncing Senate Dems:

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Democrats aren't going to punish Lieberman because Democrats don't do 'mean.' Well, Democrats other than Joe Lieberman. He's a certifiable ass. But he seems to be the only ass in town. All the other Democrats, Harry Reid included, it now seems, are willing to let anyone walk all over them, and stab them in the back, repeatedly, all the while politely asking for more. The Democratic cave on Lieberman is about far more than one traitor. It's about the Democrats' overall lack of backbone. It's about, as one swing voter said to me in 2004, if the Democrats aren't willing to defend themselves how are they going to defend my kids. And the thing is, I'm not sure I have an answer any more."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "[Lieberman] has spouted the most defamatory attacks, not only against Barack Obama, but against war opponents generally. More significantly still, Democrats in his own state -- his own constituents -- booted him out of the party, no longer wanting to be represented by him. That is who Senate Democrats appear well on their way to selecting to serve as their Chairman of Homeland Security, of all committees. That's because nothing that Lieberman has done really bothers them. Endorsing the Iraq War and the full panoply of radical Bush policies isn't disqualifying in the least because so many of them also endorsed that and support it, or, at the very least, it's not a priority for them. They care even less what their 'base' thinks, what the so-called 'Left' wants. Few things in this world are less likely than them ever taking even a mild stand -- such as stripping Lieberman of his Chair -- in order to defend some sort of political principle, or to punish ineptitude, or to announce that there are certain lines to the Right that can't be crossed. They don't do that. They never have. And it shouldn't surprise anyone that they won't now."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "There should be a price to pay for what Lieberman has done, and his former colleagues in the Democratic Party should do the right thing and take away his chairmanship. Having said all that, I doubt they will. [...] It will be no great surprise if they cave once again. In fact, the only surprise outcome for me would be if they actually do strip Lieberman of his Chairmanship."

digby is disgusted: "I just watched [IN Sen.] Evan Bayh try to explain to [MSNBC's] Rachel Maddow why Lieberman needs to keep his chairmanship. Bayh explained that they have no choice because Lieberman is threatening to leave the Senate if he doesn't get his way -- and the Connecticut Governor will then name a Republican who will never vote with them. And if he stays and doesn't get what he wants, he will be 'embittered' and then vote against them on close votes out of spite. So in order to do what's necessary for the country they need to give him what he wants. I guess that's what putting 'country first' means. Bayh was just embarrassing. He's going to have to pop a fistful of viagra and watch some '24' just to persuade himself that his testes are still descended after that pathetic performance. They should just get this over with. Watching these people willingly (pretend to) cower like beaten dogs before Holy Joe's threats is just depressing. Just do it already."

LIEBERMAN III: Show Some Cojones, Harry!

Several prominent liberal bloggers are arguing that Reid will show himself to be a weak Senate leader if he can't guarantee enough votes to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee:

• Aravosis: "Reid has the power to remove Joe Lieberman's committee chair and/or kick him out of the Democratic caucus. Yes, Lieberman has to be put up to a vote before the full Democratic caucus. But if Reid were a real leader, he could get his way in a snap. No one is going to challenge their leader if he says that he absolutely wants Lieberman out. At least that's the way it works on the Republican side of the aisle. There, discipline matters. And it shows in how they vote. But Reid won't say that."
• Moulitsas: "If Lieberman is rewarded for this behavior and keeps his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, it'll be on Reid's head. He either runs the Senate, or he doesn't. And if he's so weak that Lieberman survives, then he doesn't deserve to run the caucus, or, frankly, to hold his seat. And his will be one of the few Democratic seats seriously endangered in 2010."

In a separate post, Moulitsas elaborates: "Let me be clear: Harry Reid is the Senate leader. As such, he's expected to, you know, lead the Senate. Yet read the tea leaves, and all you see are unnamed Senate aides whining that Reid wants to give the Homeland Security chairmanship to a Democrat who has earned the post, but is being undermined by Obama (another unitary executive?), or [CT Sen. Chris] Dodd, or [FL Sen. Bill] Nelson, or whoever. So to remind everyone, Harry Reid is the Senate leader. As such, he's expected to, you know, lead the Senate. If he fails, then he shouldn't be Senate leader."

HEALTH CARE: Are Mandates Back On The Table?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about the health reform plan released yesterday by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, which "goes beyond Obama's plan by requiring everybody to purchase health insurance once affordable options are available". Most liberal bloggers believe that a mandate is necessary in order to ensure universal coverage, and they're excited that Baucus (who's known as a centrist) has released a plan that's even bolder than Obama's:

• New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: "This is very big news. One of the key questions about the new Democratic majority was whether Congress would try to play it safe, backing down on big ideas about reform, especially on health care. You can view the whole chorus about how we're still a 'center-right nation' as an attempt by the usual suspects to scare Democrats into scaling back their ambitions. But now Max Baucus -- Max Baucus! -- is leading the charge on a health care plan that, at least at first read, is more like Hillary Clinton's than Barack Obama's; that is, it looks like an attempt at full universality. (The word I hear, by the way, is that Obama's opposition to mandates was tactical politics, not conviction -- so he may well be prepared to do the right thing now that the election is won.) So this looks very good for the reformers. There's now a reasonable chance that universal health care will be enacted next year!"
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Krugman, and most health care experts and House Democrats working on health care reform, have pushed for mandated health coverage because it's about the only way to really ensure the cost-savings to the whole system that are necessary to provide universal coverage. Not having it leaves too many in the gap that's helped to create this crisis -- they're not getting the preventive care that helps to keep costs down along the line. That Obama is signalling flexibility on this issue is key, and good news for the chances of reform. That this is coming from cautious, conservative, DLCish Max Baucus does indeed mean, as Krugman says, that it's looking much more likely that we have universal health care enacted in the next year."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I very much doubt that mandates will be a huge sticking point with Obama. In fact, he might very well breathe a sigh of relief that someone like Baucus is insisting on it, since it gives him an easy out on the issue. Bottom line: Republicans will almost certainly try to filibuster whatever the final product turns out to be, but they're going to have a hard time making it stick. Unlike 1994, Baucus, [MA Sen. Ted] Kennedy, [NY Sen.] Hillary Clinton, and the president are roughly on the same page, the liberal interest groups are interested in getting something done, not bickering, and even the business community is finally coming around to the need for dramatic action. I give serious healthcare reform an 80% chance of passing before June."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "As others have noted, Senator Baucus's 'white paper' is very big news. As one of the most conservative and business-friendly Dems, the fact that he's signed on to such an aggressive Clinton/Edwards-type plan means that health care reform is on. The battle is really coming this time. And it's incredibly exciting."

Ezra Klein explains the legislative politics behind Baucus' proposal: "Do not think of this as Max Baucus's health care plan. It isn't. Not yet. As of now, it's a policy paper, not a piece of legislation. It is the beginning of Max Baucus's attempt to create a health care reform process. What Baucus has offered is not the Max Baucus health care plan, but the generic Democratic health care plan. The place from which the policy process among congressional Democrats can start. It is extremely similar to the Obama plan if you added a mandate, and to the Clinton and Edwards plans if you left them untouched. If you liked those plans -- and most Democrats, eventually, did -- you like this one. It's as basic as that. The plan is really less a legislative document than a concrete articulation of what politically attuned Democrats currently understand to be the party's consensus of health reform, and this document is part of Baucus's bid to lead the resulting legislative process. It is not Baucus's final say on what the eventual product will look like."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias adds: "...It was always a bit misleading to construe the mandate debate as one pitting a 'more ambitious' mandate-laden plan against a more politically timid mandate-free plan. Rather, I think it's better to look at this as pitting two different theories of political expediency against each other. To the man on the street, things probably look better if your plan can be attacked as forcing people to do stuff. But of course to an insurance company executive or his lobbyists, things look better if your plan doesn't allow the young and healthy (i.e., the actuarially desirable clients) to opt out of buying your product. Max Baucus is not much of a political risk-taker, but he is very attuned to the moods of insurance company interests and feels, plausibly, that the kind of quid pro quid structure of a mandate/regulate plan is the best chance to get things through even if it's also more vulnerable to rhetorical assault in some ways."

MN SEN: Ritchie Vs. The Rightroots

Conservative bloggers are criticizing MN Sec/State Mark Ritchie for accusing MN Sen. Norm Coleman's camp of trying "to win at any price":

"The Democratic Secretary of State of Minnesota, Mark Ritchie, was just on MSNBC talking about the recount in the Minnesota Senate race between Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Democrat Al Franken, and his comments will likely upset Coleman's campaign. Asked about the Coleman campaign's criticism of the recanvassing process, Ritchie said: 'Their goal is to win at any price. They've invested millions and millions of dollars. We consider this part of the normal political rhetoric,' said Ritchie. 'We're used to the political rhetoric being amped up. That's part of their job -- to win at any price.'"

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Maybe Mark Ritchie thinks that politicians should win at any price, but that says more about Ritchie than it does about Coleman. In fact, that statement may explain why Ritchie has remained silent while voting totals keep changing all over the state in Al Franken's favor. Apparently, the DFL Secretary of State believes in winning at any price, and sees that as his job."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "These are highly inflammatory remarks from Ritchie, the official tasked with overseeing the contentious recount between Coleman and [Franken]. As Secretary of State, Ritchie has rebuffed attempts to ensure integrity in the election process, calling Republican concerns about ACORN 'desperate.' This may be because before becoming Secretary, Ritchie actively worked with ACORN to increase voter registrations through a liberally-leaning umbrella group. Ritchie has also been unwilling investigate a batch of 32 absentee ballots an election worker 'found' in the trunk of her car. Every one of them were marked for Franken."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "In this morning's Minneapolis Star Tribune, columnist Kathy Kersten writes about Minnesota's liberal activist Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie. [...] Ritchie describes his 'partnership with ACORN' here."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "We should definitely be keeping a very close eye on Mr. Ritchie."

RNC: FredHeads Bash Steele

Several conservative bloggers are arguing that ex-TN Sen. Fred Thompson would make a better RNC Chairman than ex-MD LG Michael Steele because Steele has done a poor job as GOPAC Chairman:

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "I join almost every other conservative in hailing Michael Steele's principles, personality, and eloquence. But does he actually have much of a record getting things done? Look back in Maryland, and it's a seriously iffy answer. And now, I am informed (and the info is available at the FEC site here), that GOPAC, which Steele has headed for the past two (?) years, has been a mere shadow of its former self while under Steele's leadeship. [...] In terms of candidates, it looks like GoPAC only gave $29,250 to candidates the entire year, $5000 of which went to Steele's own campaign in Maryland. By comparison, Fred Thompson's PAC gave $41,900 to candidates and PACs in the first half of the month of October alone. If Steele wants to be RNC chairman, he needs to explain this poor performance at GOPAC."
• The Next Right's Michael Turk: "While I think Steele is an appealing candidate with a great narrative (I love that he used to be a monk), I have to judge him on performance leading an organization like the RNC. [...] Under Michael Steele, as of October 15, GOPAC had raised a whopping $77,135 this year. Of that, it gave just over $29,000 to candidates -- with $5,000 of that going to Steele's own campaign in Maryland. By comparison, Fred Thompson launched FredPAC at the beginning of September -- just 60 days before the election. In that 60 days, Fred contributed $42,000 to candidates, recorded ads and robo-calls for GOP candidates, and criss-crossed the country trying to elect Republicans and the McCain-Palin ticket."
• AmSpec Blog's J. Peter Freire: "After speaking with people involved with the RNC Chairman race, it's becoming clear that the contours of the race have to do with two things: Is the candidate a conservative, and is the candidate willing to do the work. But there's also a third point: Is the candidate a committeeman in the RNC? Michael Steele has problems here. For one thing, he's not a committeeman. Another, he didn't even want to run as a real Republican in his Maryland race. And lastly, his work at GOPAC has been lackluster."

Hot Air's Allahpundit isn't convinced that Thompson would be a better RNC Chairman than Steele: "Fred to challenge Steele for RNC chair? I like it, but Steele embodies 'change' a lot more than Fred does and Change is, after all, the order of the day. [...] One's preference for [Thompson], Steele, or [ex-Speaker Newt] Gingrich depends on what one thinks the GOP most desperately needs: A return to traditional conservatism, an expansion of the party's base, or an infusion of new policy ideas, whether those ideas are especially sound or not. (Notably absent: An emphasis on managerial competence.) That's not to suggest that any of the three couldn't pull off more than one of the above, but we're talking symbolism and priorities here. One possible strike against Fred: The party's now so identified with the south that RNC members might actually consider it a liability to reinforce that impression with a chairman as overtly southern as Thompson. One possible strike for Fred: Turns out Michael Steele's in no hurry to overturn Roe v. Wade, per his 2006 appearance on Meet the Press."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Race Matters

Princeton Prof. Larry Bartels:

"The election of our first black president constitutes 'a strikingly symbolic moment in the evolution of the nation's fraught racial history,' as Adam Nagourney put it in the New York Times. It has prompted hearty self-congratulation all around regarding the broad-mindedness of American voters. [...] However, there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence suggesting that racial resentment eroded Obama's support among white voters. His gains relative to [John] Kerry were significantly smaller in states with large numbers of African-Americans -- a pattern disguised in the overall vote totals by his strong support among African-Americans themselves. In the former Confederacy he gained only slightly over Kerry among white voters, despite making big gains in two key swing states, North Carolina and Virginia. The only states in the country in which he lost more than a point or two of white support were Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

The notable resistance of southern whites to Obama's candidacy continues a half-century trend sparked by the demise of the unnatural southern Democratic monopoly of the Jim Crow era. From 1952 through 2004, the average level of support for Democratic presidential candidates fell by more than 15 points among white southerners while increasing slightly among whites in the rest of the country. This year's pattern reinforces that long-term shift, underlining the extent to which the Democratic Party's much-discussed 'culture' problem is really a regional problem rooted in white racial resentment."

LEST WE FORGET: Libertarian Blogger Takes On The Office of National Drug Control Policy

Radley Balko (h/t Michael D.):

"The latest absurdity to come out of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is an anti-pot PR campaign with the motto, 'Hey, not trying to be your mom, but there aren't many jobs out there for potheads.' The first three ads suggest that drug users can look forward to a career as a 'burrito taster,' a 'couch security guard,' or 'remote control operator.' It's an incredibly lame campaign, and reeks of stodgy wonks making a desperate attempt to look hip. [...] Let's compile a master list of admitted pot smokers -- current or former -- who not only haven't ended up as heroin junkies or burnouts, but have gone on to lead successful lives. [...] I'll get it started:

Barack Obama, president-elect. Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the U.S. John Kerry, U.S. Senator and 2004 Democratic nominee for president. John Edwards, multi-millionaire, former U.S. Senator, and 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president. Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, 2008 Republican nominee for vice president. [...] Josh Howard, NBA all-star. New York Governor David Paterson. Former Vice President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Oscar winner Al Gore. Former Sen. Bill Bradley, who smoked while playing professional basketball. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former New York Governor George Pataki. Billionaire and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg."

11/12: Ratcheting Up The Pressure

Liberal bloggers continue to urge Senate Dems to remove ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The netroots have various reasons for wanting to punish Lieberman. Some argue that it's dangerous to give an outspoken Barack Obama critic the authority to conduct investigations of Obama's administration. Others argue that Lieberman doesn't deserve to chair this committee because he is "an anti-Muslim bigot" who has "actively worked to undermine the progressive agenda". Markos Moulitsas makes the case simply: "Plum committee chairmanships should go to those who worked to elect Democrats to the Senate and White House, not those who, like Lieberman, spoke at the RNC convention trashing our nominee and campaigned for Republicans in Senate races in Maine and Minnesota."

Now that it's been confirmed that the full Dem caucus "will vote on whether Joe Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee", liberal bloggers are speculating about how the vote will break down. Chris Bowers predicts that a majority of Dem senators will vote to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship, but other bloggers are more pessimistic. Either way, it's clear that the netroots will spend the next week encouraging their readers to call their Dem senators and tell them to take away Lieberman's chairmanship. As Greg Sargent explains: "The decision to go forward with the vote offers the anti-Lieberman forces a key opportunity to ratchet up the pressure right now."

LIEBERMAN: Joe's Gotta Go

Liberal bloggers continue to urge Senate Dems to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security committee:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Plum committee chairmanships should go to those who worked to elect Democrats to the Senate and White House, not those who, like Lieberman, spoke at the RNC convention trashing our nominee and campaigned for Republicans in Senate races in Maine and Minnesota."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "There's been a lot of discussion about Lieberman's behavior during the election, from suggesting Obama might be a Marxist to accusing him of 'not putting country first,' to other assorted incidents in which Lieberman embarrassed himself while shilling for John McCain. But none of those are reasons why Lieberman should lose his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Lieberman should lose his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee because it's about to be 2009 and there is no reason to keep an anti-Muslim bigot who believes the United States is being subverted by Muslims from within in charge of a Committee that handles national security affairs. Lieberman participated in The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America, a movie which claims there is a vast conspiracy of American Muslims to subvert democracy [...] These are the same people who gave us the shadowy anti-Muslim Obsession film that was distributed in newspapers in swing states during election season. Put simply, you can't have an anti-Muslim bigot in charge of Homeland Security when the country as a whole is dealing with the threat of Islamic extremism."

On the right side of the blogosphere, AmSpec Blog's James Antle doesn't think Lieberman has much leverage: "Next year the Democrats will control at least 57 Senate seats instead of the current 51-49 split and Dick Cheney will no longer be president of the Senate. That makes Lieberman a lot less useful to [Sen. Maj. Leader Harry] Reid & company. In case things don't work out with Reid, Lieberman is now said to be in talks with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell about caucusing with the Republicans. But it's hard to see how that would be particularly useful unless Lieberman changes his position on some domestic issues or agrees to sustain GOP filibusters regardless of his personal position. With the economy looming larger than Iraq, Lieberman's voting record seems likely to return to the Democratic fold even if the Connecticut senator himself is expelled from it."

LIEBERMAN II: A Progressive No More

Many liberal bloggers are promoting a new Think Progress report entitled, "Joe Lieberman: The Progressive Who Lost His Way". The report lists a number of Lieberman statements over the years and concludes:

"While Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has fought for progressive policies in the past -- such as protecting the environment and expanding civil rights -- his recent record demonstrates that he's a progressive no more. As this report documents, Lieberman has embraced the right wing on far more than foreign policy. In fact, he has betrayed progressive principles on a variety of domestic issues. As he has lurched to the right, Lieberman has actively worked to undermine the progressive agenda."

• Moulitsas: "The 'he votes with us on everything but the war' crap is just that -- crap, as a comprehensive study by the Center for American Progress notes. [...] This guy long ago lost his way, which is why his own constituents have tired of him."
• Atrios: "Not just the war. And not just that he campaigned for McCain and supported Republican senators. Joe's bad for a lot of reasons."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "If anyone has any lingering doubts as to why there should be at least some consequence for Lieberman's misconduct, the fine folks at ThinkProgress have a new report highlighting the senator's recent record."

LIEBERMAN III: Judged By A Panel Of His Peers

Now that it's been confirmed that the full Dem caucus "will vote on whether Joe Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee", liberal bloggers are discussing the upcoming vote:

• TPM's Sargent: "This isn't about expelling Lieberman from the caucus. It's about the committee chairmanship. The Lieberman camp wants the story framed as 'poor Joe may get booted for the caucus by revenge-minded liberals,' because then it becomes solely about retribution."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Let's be clear: the question on the table is not whether Dems will boot Joe from their caucus. The question is whether Lieberman will remain chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. We've heard rumors that the decision would be made by a caucus vote, but now, a Senate aide tells Sargent, it's official. [...] Lieberman really has one lifeline left: convince enough Senators in the Dem caucus that stripping him of his chair would be vindictive, mean, and partisan. We all know how nervous politicians get when someone accuses them of *gasp* being partisan...But there's no reason to give Lieberman an inch. Removing him as chair is a perfectly appropriate remedy for how he's politicized national security to attack his own party. Joe walked into this all on his own."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "[The] full Dem caucus will vote on Lieberman's fate. At least now we can force the spineless wonders to take a public position. It is depressing how quickly the Democrats are choosing to show they have no spine. It's a week since the election. I think that's a record."

Open Left's Bowers does some "whip counting" and concludes that a majority of Dems will probably vote to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship: "Six members of the Senate -- [DE Sen. Thomas] Carper, [HI Sen. Daniel] Inouye, [LA Sen. Mary] Landrieu, [NE Sen. Ben] Nelson, [AK Sen. Mark] Pryor and [CO Sen. Ken] Salazar -- publicly backed Lieberman over Democratic nominee Ned Lamont two years ago. As such, it is safe to mark these six in Lieberman's column. They all backed Joe running against a Democrat once before, so why would this be any different? [IN Sen.] Evan Bayh (a former DLC chair who was eyeing a Presidential bid back in 2006) and [CT Sen.] Chris Dodd (also from Connecticut) have come out in support of Lieberman. This brings Lieberman's total to eight. Howard Fineman report[s] that [IL Sen. Dick] Durbin and [NY Sen. Chuck] Schumer are opposed to Lieberman keeping the Homeland Security Chairmanship. [...] Schumer is the DSCC chair who has overseen the first election of fifteen of the Democratic Senators who will be at the meeting. Those fifteen Senators also won't appreciate Lieberman running against Democrats in 2006 and 2008, since they were all elected in those two years. Harry Reid also opposes Lieberman keeping the chairmanship. If he didn't, then what would all of this arguing even be about? [...] In addition to Schumer, Reid, and Durbin, nineteen other incumbent Democrats who will be in the Senate in 2010 publicly supported Ned Lamont back in 2006. These are our best chance for votes among sitting Senators. Overall, these numbers leave me cautiously optimistic. We have the leadership on our side, while Lieberman basically has the Democratic half of the Gang of Fourteen."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher thinks Bowers' whip count is "optimistic": "[Bowers] counts [CA Sen. Barbara] Boxer as someone who would vote for expulsion. While Boxer towed the line in 2006 and ultimately supported Lamont as the Democratic nominee, she's a good friend of Joe's who campaigned for him during the primary -- with semi-disastrous results. I don't see Boxer throwing Short Ride under the bus. Of course, you can always call and ask her."

Meanwhile, Salon's Green Greenwald is pessimistic about the chances of taking away Lieberman's chairmanship: "This will be decided by secret Senate ballot, so we'll likely never know who did what. It's hard to say what will happen, but if I had to guess, I'd say that Lieberman will remain exactly as is. Does anyone really have any faith in Senate Democrats to do anything else?"

MCCAIN: Weak Sauce, Maverick

Many conservative bloggers were hoping that McCain would use last night's appearance on "The Tonight Show" as an opportunity to denounce his anonymous campaign aides who leaked unflattering stories about Sarah Palin:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Apparently John McCain will be on the [Jay] Leno show tonight. It will be disappointing if he fails to disassociate himself from his classless aides."
• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "The silence from John McCain about all the anti-Sarah Palin rumors being peddled to press has been remarkable. Why hasn't he stood up for her? He should have tried to put an end to the ugliness."

These bloggers were disappointed that McCain did not denounce the anonymous aides:

• Carpenter: "John McCain didn't have much of an answer for all the rumors members of his campaign are peddling about Sarah Palin in his first post-election appearance. Palin's name didn't even come up in his 'Tonight Show' interview until after the first commercial break and McCain's first segment was nearly seven minutes long! [...] McCain never said the rumors were untrue or denounced the people pushing them."
• Michelle Malkin: "From the man whose best-sellers include 'Why Courage Matters' and 'Character Is Destiny' comes this underwhelming reaction to the cowardly smearing of Sarah Palin by his own unnamed staffers: 'These things happen.' Not: 'Shame on the leakers. I denounce and renounce them.' Not: 'I'm going to get to the bottom of this and make sure those blabbermouths never work in a major campaign again.' Just: 'These things happen.' Heckuva job, McLame."

Meanwhile, RedState's Erick Erickson -- who has been trying to track down the anonymous McCain aides leaking unflattering stories about Palin -- points a finger at ex-NH AG Tom Rath: "Tom Rath is the former Attorney General General of New Hampshire. He's also been a Republican National Committeeman. He is not the type of guy people should treat lightly. I am, consequently, rather disturbed that several people, both inside and outside the McCain campaign -- trusted people -- tell me Mr. Rath is responsible for the Newsweek story about Sarah Palin's temper tantrum in New Hampshire. [...] Rath is one of those who hitched his wagon to Mitt Romney. It is, however, people in the Romney camp pointing fingers at Rath, in addition to McCain staffers. I called Mr. Rath at his office to ask him about it. I said I was calling about the latest Sarah Palin smear. He seemed to know which one I was talking about. He vigorously denied the charge, said he had never met Sarah Palin before, and was not responsible for it. I guess the question then is why are people close to Mitt Romney and John McCain looking disapprovingly in his direction?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Palin's Dilemma

Hot Air's Allahpundit:

"Read Ron Brownstein's exit poll number-crunching to see how much work she has to do among independents to become a viable presidential candidate. The only way she adds to that 35 percent, I think, is to totally wonk out on foreign and domestic policy in interviews going forward. But that presents a dilemma: The reason the media's fascinated with her is because she's not a wonk, but rather an average Jill who shuttles the kids to school and whips up a little moose stew on the fly when she's not busy governing the biggest state in America. That's why not one, not two, but all three interviews she's done this week have included scenes of her in the kitchen and around the house. Once she starts demanding that they skip the vignettes related to her persona and ask her questions about Ukraine, how many reporters will still want to talk to her?"

LEST WE FORGET: In Defense Of Bloggers Who Live In Their Parents' Basements

During her interview with FOX News' Greta Van Susteren, Palin took a shot at liberal bloggers:

"Ms. Palin directed most of her media criticism at liberal bloggers, whom she twice called, 'those bloggers in their parents' basement just talkin' garbage.'"

Blue Tidal Wave's The Saint thinks this is unfair (h/t John Cole):

"How quickly Palin forgets who brought her to the nation's attention. It was a conservative blogger who lived in his parents' basement. University of Colorado-Colorado Springs student and right wing blogger Adam Brickley was given credit for being the first to envision Palin as a Republican vice-presidential candidate via his website: http://www.palinforvp.blogspot.com. Sarah and Todd Palin personally called to thank Brickley after she was selected as McCain's running mate."

11/11: Lieberman Vs. The Netroots: The Sequel

It feels like the summer of '06 all over again in the liberal blogosphere. Ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman is finding himself under heavy fire from the netroots, who are urging Dem Senators to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Liberal bloggers don't care that Lieberman is threatening to caucus with the GOP Senators if the Dems take away his committee chairmanship. In their view, the Dems no longer need Lieberman now that they have at least 57 seats (or 56 without him). Moreover, they're not willing to let Lieberman use his authority as chair of the Homeland Security Committee to investigate Barack Obama's administration. Jane Hamsher warns:

"If [Sen. Maj. Leader Harry] Reid buckles to Lieberman's threats, permitting him to keep control of the Homeland Security Committee, the Democrats will no doubt discover that Lieberman has a new zeal for investigating that will be a thorn in Obama's side for the next four years."

The netroots were disappointed to learn that Obama "wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats". Several liberal bloggers asked the Obama camp to clarify whether or not Obama wants Lieberman to retain his committee chairmanship, but the Obama camp refused to take a position. Most lefty bloggers view the Obama camp's statement as helpful to Lieberman's chances of preserving his chairmanship, but Markos Moulitsas thinks that Obama has simply "left the decision up to Reid."

LIEBERMAN: Key Committee Chairmanships Aren't For Traitors

Liberal bloggers are urging Dem Senators to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, even though Lieberman is threatening to caucus with the GOP Senators if that happens:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Aside from some idiotic asides (like 'national security'), Lieberman's core arguments for continuing to chair the Homeland Security committee are that 1) he votes with Democrats on everything except the war, and 2) he gave Democrats the Senate majority the last two years. The first argument is easily tossed aside. The guy spoke at the RNC convention. For the last year, he's been a de facto Republican. But that second argument holds little merit as well. [...The Homeland Security committee] was the committee with jurisdiction over the administration's handling of Katrina. Anyone remember Lieberman using it to hold the administration accountable for drowning an entire city? Of course not. If Lieberman wants to continue caucusing with the Democrats, he's welcome to do so. But not as chair of this key committee. He hasn't earned the right to stay there based on his performance the last two years, and he has certainly not earned that right with his aggressive efforts the past year to trash Obama in the presidential election on issues of -- yes -- homeland security. We don't need him. No need to throw him out of the caucus, but he can't keep that committee."
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "[Lieberman's] committee chairmanship [is] a leadership position. Something you earn and keep based not just on your ability not to get your ass kicked out of the Senate by your constituents, but by pulling for the team. And -- it used to go without saying -- not pulling for the other team. Or at least it used to be. These days, it appears, there are a number of Democratic Senators who don't mind if you spit in their faces and try to undermine everything they've been working for. [...] We all chewed broken glass for two years to get this job done, and Joe Lieberman slashed our tires, poured sugar in our gas tanks, and generally took every opportunity he could to fart in the Big Tent he now prays will shelter him. Woe fucking betide any Senator who votes to save this saboteur."

Firedoglake's Hamsher chronicles all of Lieberman's transgressions: "During his [2006 re-election] campaign, Lieberman said that it was important for him win his Senate race in order to 'elect a Democratic President in 2008,' and that [Ned] Lamont and his supporters would 'frustrate and defeat our hope of doing that.' Undoubtedly, he was a good friend of John McCain for years. And he agreed with McCain about the Iraq War. But underlying his actions was bitterness against the Democrats. Lieberman threatened to caucus with the Republicans over and over again to get his way as the decisive marginal vote in a Senate held by the Democrats by only one vote -- Joe Lieberman's. But it was with the 2008 presidential election that his bitterness became his rocket fuel. Lieberman was unbound. In addition to acting as McCain's sidekick and protector, he stumped for Republican senators, campaigning for Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota against their Democratic opponents. Lieberman promised Reid privately that he would not attack Obama directly and personally. But when prevailed upon by the McCain operatives, Lieberman could not help himself. He played the paragon of decency even as he gleefully accepted the role of snarling attack dog: He said that 'Obama has not always put country first.' He thought it was a 'good question' to inquire whether Obama is a Marxist. He misleadingly accused Obama of having 'voted to cut off funding for our troops.' He repeated the claim that 'Hamas endorsed Obama' and said it 'suggests the difference between these two candidates.' He sent out an email for McCain, referring to the 'Democrat' Party, the derogatory term of art preferred by the most partisan Republicans."

Hamsher concludes her lengthy post with a warning to Dems: "During the Bush administration, as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Lieberman showed no interest whatsoever in investigating a multitude of scandals, including those of Hurricane Katrina. He abandoned his promise to investigate them after [Karl] Rove helped him hold his Senate seat. If Reid buckles to Lieberman's threats, permitting him to keep control of the Homeland Security Committee, the Democrats will no doubt discover that Lieberman has a new zeal for investigating that will be a thorn in Obama's side for the next four years. Still wielding power the turncoat would exact his revenge on the new president."

LIEBERMAN II: Where's His Leverage?

Several liberal bloggers are arguing that Lieberman is in no position to make implicit threats about joining the GOP if he loses his committee chairmanship:

• Moulitsas: "Sure, Lieberman has argued that if he loses Homeland Security he'll bolt, but he's bluffing. He's still got 2012 to think about, and being in a GOP minority with zero committee chairmanships won't do him any favors, either politically or substantively on policy matters. So call his bluff. Give him some other committee chairmanship. If he doesn't like it and bolts, it won't be because Democrats pushed him out."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I'm not sure I understand what leverage Joe Lieberman is supposed to have in his battle to save his committee chairmanship. [...] Lieberman can't swing control [of the Senate] to the GOP. And presumably Lieberman isn't going to adopt liberal views on foreign policy to make Democrats happy and keep his seat. Is he saying that if Democrats decide to put a more loyal partisan in charge of the committee he'll disavow his previous views on domestic issues and become an opponent of Roe v. Wade and a climate change denier? It's in his power to make that threat, I suppose, but if he wants to make it he ought to say so plainly and squarely for everyone to hear -- that would be a pretty dishonorable kind of threat to make. But if that's not what he's saying, then he ought to be asking for forgiveness not 'keeping all his options open.'"

LIEBERMAN III: If You Trust This Guy, You're Making A Huge Mistake

Liberal bloggers were sad to learn that Obama "has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress". They think that Obama is making a mistake by trusting Lieberman:

• digby: "So Obama has told the Democrats that he wants them to leave Joe Lieberman alone. He will regret it. Joe Lieberman is a sanctimonious egomaniac who has no sense of loyalty or gratitude and he will stab Obama in the back as often as possible. He may even use his subpoena power on the Homeland Security Committee (which they are going to have to let him keep) to harrass him on behalf of conservative interests. It's a huge mistake to keep him in the caucus where he will have knowledge of their strategy and legislative tactics. He will be the first one called upon to 'speak for' Democrats who are unhappy with Obama's inevitable 'overreaching.' He is a mole for the Republican party."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Lieberman is the Fox News of the Senate. Enable him now, and it'll just bite you in the rear later. Obama might as well recognize Joe's bad faith early and save himself the headache."

Open Left's Matt Stoller thinks this incident illustrates the ideological differences between Dem politicians and the netroots: "Our elected leadership simply does not share the same assumptions about politics that we do. We believe that Lieberman was rejected by Democratic primary voters and that his campaigning against Obama, our nominee, suggest he's not worth keeping in the party. They believe that the primary voters' choice was irrelevant, that his campaigning against Obama was mostly annoying and unrelated to policy, and that the votes and relationships within the Senate and among different elite decision-makers are all that matters. It's disagreement based on different conceptions of politics, and it means that we have to exercise power in aggressive ways within the party to frustrate and annoy our leaders."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis offers his thoughts: "Lieberman endorsed the Republican candidate for president. He appeared with him at numerous rallies, including McCain's final rally the night before the election. Lieberman dissed Dems at the Republican convention, a la [ex-GA Sen.] Zell Miller. Lieberman accused Obama of being un-American. These are not crimes to the far-left of the Democratic party. This is a betrayal of the Democratic party and our candidate. And it's nice for Obama to want to make nice (not that Obama has much of a choice -- what's he gonna say, off with is head?) But at some point, Democrats need to have some backbone. [...] The party never gives Democrats a reason to toe the line. And we wonder why they stray? Joe Lieberman is going to screw us again. I am just counting the days until he starts to hold hearings to embarrass President Obama and his fellow Democrats. Then the Democrats will have only themselves to blame. As always."

LIEBERMAN IV: Be More Specific, Obama!

Several liberal bloggers asked Obama to clarify whether or not he wants Lieberman to retain his committee chairmanship, not whether or not he wants Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Dems. This morning, TPM's Greg Sargent posted a response from the Obama camp:

"President-Elect Barack Obama doesn't 'hold any grudges' against Senator Joe Lieberman for opposing his presidential candidacy, and will not take any position on the question of whether Lieberman should be permitted to keep his plum chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, an Obama spokesperson just confirmed to us.

'We aren't going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair,' Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter emailed me, in response to questions about Obama's stance on Lieberman's future."

Most liberal bloggers think the Obama camp's statement about not holding "grudges" will help Lieberman preserve his committee chairmanship:

• Sargent: "The move is all but certain to take the steam out of any efforts to dislodge Lieberman from the committee."
• Orton: "This statement is intentionally fuzzy -- it splits the baby. [...] While some read this as an Obama blessing of whatever the Senate decides, I think it's instead quite beneficial to Lieberman's case. Joe has been working tirelessly to blur the situation -- publicly trying to make nice with Obama and convince the world that his election conduct was within bounds and reasonable. If Lieberman can frame attempts to strip his chairmanship as retribution, he'll win."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "This is a bit of a setback to the campaign to oust Lieberman from his committee chairmanship. Internal Democratic Senate caucus support to remove Lieberman from his chairmanship appears significantly based on Lieberman's support for McCain. For the Obama campaign to say 'meh, we don't care that he supported McCain,' will thus help Lieberman out quite a bit. Some will argue that there is no political benefit to be had for the Obama campaign to publicly oppose Lieberman's chairmanship. That may be true, but we need to remember is actually 'Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs,' and as such is the committee charged with oversight of the executive branch. Surely, having someone more favorable to your administration than Lieberman would be useful to an incoming administration."

Moulitsas disagrees: "Greg Sargent seems to take this as pro-Lieberman. I see it exactly the opposite -- it's a generic, 'Reid can do what he wants in his Senate' type of statement. Nowhere does Cutter say that Lieberman should keep his chairmanship, and nowhere does he demand that Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. Saying 'we'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats' isn't any huge shakes because, quite frankly, no one is seriously demanding that Lieberman be kicked out of the caucus. The question is whether he should keep his committee chairmanship, and on that front, Obama's team has punted. [...] It's on Reid's plate. If Lieberman keeps his committee leadership, it'll be Reid's fault. Everyone has dumped the decision on his lap, and it should be an easy enough one to make."

MN SEN: Don't Let Dems Steal This Seat!

Conservative bloggers are accusing Dems of trying to steal the MN SEN election for Al Franken (who's currently trailing GOP Sen. Coleman by 206 votes):

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Based on my own research, I'm convinced that the two big increases in Franken's total that have been clearly reported on -- Mountain Iron Precinct 1 and Partridge Township -- are legitimate. The Coleman campaign sent a representative to Mountain Iron today to get to the bottom of that 100-vote jump, but the 'corrected' totals look right in the context of the other races in Precinct 1 and the results in Precinct 2. [...] I don't know what the story is in Two Harbors, but the one Franken bump that is clearly dubious is the 30-plus absentee ballots that a Democrat ostensibly discovered in the back seat of her car. There is no way that should happen. There is, I suspect, much more of the same to come."
• RedState's Soren Dayton: "Democrats have no shame. According to the AP, Joker Al Franken's campaign tried to add votes to their tally that had already been disqualified. Fortunately, the Hennepin County Board of Elections shot them down. [...] The Franken campaign is running out of ways to steal the election. So they are flailing for lame mechanisms to do so. They are afraid."
• RedState's Leon H. Wolf: "If you think the MN race is over just because all the votes have been counted and Norm Coleman ended up with more, then you must not have been around for the 2004 Washington State Gubernatorial Election. Currently, Coleman leads Franken by right around 200 votes, and the Democrats have to feel at this point like they can find at least that many votes stashed 'forgotten' in the trunk of some election worker's car. [...] Norm Coleman won his seat in a bitter and close election; help him keep it."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "John Lott finds Al Franken's odd vote gains in Minnesota -- before any recount -- statistically implausible. [...] Matthew Vadum reported on the main site on the ACORN allying overseeing the vote-tallying process. Are the Democrats not done trying to get to 60 seats in the Senate?"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Lott: Minnesota could be the new Washington. Or, as Dr. John Lott explains in his latest column, Minnesota may avoid the distinction of being the latest poster state for voter fraud if elections officials can take control of the process quickly. John notes that the additional votes 'discovered' for Al Franken against Norm Coleman seem suspicious, especially since they involve mainly three precincts out of over four thousand."

RNC: Newt To The Rescue?

Most conservative bloggers are enthusiastic about the possibility of Newt Gingrich running for RNC chairman (although they're also fond of ex-MD LG Michael Steele):

• Morrissey: "Some wanted Gingrich to run for President in 2008, but this role would suit him much better. Gingrich has operated best as a philosopher for the conservative movement, someone who can both capture the essence of conservatism and put it into action. Gingrich has the skill to communicate to a national audience and an emeritus status that will have people paying attention when he speaks. As RNC chair, his political baggage becomes irrelevant, allowing him to focus on party- and agenda-building instead of running for office. Most importantly, Gingrich understands the technological tools that escaped the GOP in 2008."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "It's on: Gingrich versus Michael Steele for RNC chair. [...] I'm partial to Newt just because he seems at times to be the only man left in the party with any new policy ideas, but you can't go wrong either way."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Now that Michael Steele is in the race, I think I am going to have to...still go with Gingrich. Why? Because I think Gingrich is the best idea man in the Republican Party, has more experience than Steele, and has led the Party back from the wilderness before. That being said, Michael Steele would be an excellent selection as well. He's young, charismatic, gets it, likes the blogosphere, is popular with conservatives, and understands how to pitch younger voters. Having these two guys battling it out for the RNC chair position is a win/win, because no matter who gets it, it's good for conservatives...which is why I worry that neither of them will get it."

Other conservative bloggers are skeptical of Gingrich:

• Michelle Malkin: "He crumbled on the behemoth bailout. He cuddled Nancy Pelosi on Al Gore's global warming couch. And he's played footsie with Hillary Clinton on health care. Is Newt Gingrich really the best choice for RNC chairman?"
• The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "Those inclined to support Newt Gingrich's apparent bid to chair the RNC on the grounds that he's always flush with new ideas should go back and re-read the former Speaker's list, from back in May, of policy proposals that the GOP ought to embrace to avoid disaster in November. If you find Newt's manifesto -- which urged Republicans to 'overhaul the census and cut its budget radically,' to 'implement a space-based, GPS-style air traffic control system,' and to double down on porkbusting, among other ideas -- to be a plausible blueprint for a Republican revival, then he's your man. If you have the same reaction I did, though, you might want to root for Michael Steele instead."

Several conservative bloggers are also enthusiastic about the possibility of ex-TN Sen. Fred Thompson running for RNC chairman:

• The Next Right's Jon Henke: "The RNC Chair will be in a unique position of Party and movement leadership in years ahead. The Party will need both the tacticion and the strategist. And the most important role of the RNC Chair may well be that of visionary leader. So, who actually embodies the Republican Party ideals best? I've previously suggested Fred Thompson would be an ideal fit as an RNC General Chairman -- a communicator who gets the ideals, the policy and the message -- while leaving the role of RNC Chair to the administrative manager."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "My regard for Thompson...as a communicator and as a person well grounded in winning conservative principles, is very high. His potential candidacy is quite intriguing, to say the least..."

DNC: Long Live The 50-State Strategy

Liberal bloggers are praising DNC Chairman Howard Dean following reports that Dean "is preparing to relinquish his chairmanship":

• Moulitsas: "One of my goals the next few weeks is to make sure that Howard Dean gets his due props and, by extension, all of us who fought to make Dean's vision a reality. [...] If 2008 has taught us anything, it's that Democrats can compete near everywhere, and no state, county, or precinct need be ignored. And while that was our message, it was Howard who took it to DC headfirst against fierce establishment opposition. The status quo 'battleground state' mentality may have been a loser for Democrats, but the DC political elite still had nice, comfortable lives, and anything that might threaten their status was suspect."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I very clearly remember the reaction from the political establishment when former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was chosen to head the Democratic National Committee. Most responded with two words, 'Uh oh.' Four years and two very successful campaign cycles later, Dean's achievements as chairman are unquestioned, and the benefits of his innovative 50-state strategy are self-evident. We learned today that Dean is departing the DNC, but he'll leave as something of a hero."
• TalkLeft's TChris: "Detractors of Howard Dean's work as chair of the Democratic National Committee (all he did, after all, was to deliver strong Democratic victories in two successive elections, ultimately helping the Obama campaign flip red states blue and turn much of the formerly red west a nice shade of purple) won't have Dean to kick around any more."
• Oliver Willis: "Thanks to Howard Dean, the state of our party is STRONG."

Bowers is concerned that Dean's departure (and the departure of numerous DNC organizers) means that the DNC will no longer pursue a 50-state strategy: "People inside the DNC are telling me that the program is not dead. This doesn't surprise me, because it is a popular program and I imagine that many of the remaining staffers at the DNC are committed to the program. At the same time, all of the organizers -- who were chosen by local state parties -- have been fired. That effectively kills the program, no matter the messaging and commitment of the remaining staffers. [...] Many of the large donors who always wanted Dean out and the program terminated seem to have, at least, temporarily received their wish. Although I have no evidence to support this at the current time, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is connected to Rahm Emanuel becoming Chief of Staff."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Against Compassionate Conservatism

John Hawkins:

"This is still a center-right country and the GOP brand can continue to win elections. However, this 'new Coke' called 'compassionate conservatism,' which features rapidly expanding government, large deficits, corruption, incompetence, and amnesty for illegal aliens has been a horrific failure -- and that should have been painfully obvious long ago. But, that just goes to show you, once again, that the market is much faster and smarter than our politicians. Coke brought the 'old Coke' back less than 3 months after the introduction of 'new Coke' while the Republicans seem poised to continue pushing 'compassionate conservatism' even after being brutally beaten in two straight elections."

LEST WE FORGET: Coworker Has That Excuse That's Going Around

From The Onion:

"ANN ARBOR, MI -- Digital Copy Shoppe employee Don Newson, 38, called in to work on Wednesday complaining that he was certain he had come down with the 24-hour excuse that has been going around. 'My back is killing me, I feel stuffed up, and I have this pounding headache,' said Newson, citing the initial symptoms of the excuse, which often afflicts those who are already late for work. 'It sucks, because I want to come in, but I don't want anyone else to catch what I've got. I should be fine after sleeping for a couple days.' Newson has placed himself on a strict regimen of watching the past six episodes of Entourage on HBO on Demand to cure the excuse."

11/10: The Calm Before The Storm

It was (thankfully) a fairly quiet weekend in the blogosphere. Although liberal bloggers have significant concerns about some of the names being floated for Pres.-elect Barack Obama's cabinet (especially Larry Summers), they were nevertheless excited to learn about Obama's plans to reverse some of Pres. George W. Bush's executive orders concerning climate change, stem cell research, and reproductive rights. Susan Gardner declares: "Our long national nightmare is over. The great undoing has begun."

Conservative bloggers, meanwhile, are mostly in opposition mode. Some are criticizing Obama for making a joke about Nancy Reagan, while others are complaining about a McDonald's restaurant in Topeka, KS that's apparently trying to build support for a national holiday in Obama's honor. We're sure that Obama will eventually give conservative bloggers more substantive things to complain about -- probably as soon as he makes his first cabinet appointments.

OBAMA: Change The Netroots Can Believe In

Liberal bloggers were excited to learn that Obama's transition advisers "have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues":

• Daily Kos' SusanG: "Our long national nightmare is over. The great undoing has begun."
• BooMan: "That's change I can believe in."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "These are wonderful changes. After the last eight years, the very idea that they might occur not as the result of a long drawn-out battle, but just like that, is amazing."
• dday: "If progressives want a dog whistle, here it is. [...] It's hard not to smile at all of this. I believe the applicable term is 'the adults are back in charge.' I understand that the new Administration is debating whether or not to go big and take on a variety of issues right away, but the above would reflect a pretty good deal of positive change. It's not enough, of course, and we're going to have to be there on the left flank pushing the Administration to keep moving forward and ignore the neo-Hooverists and the guardians of the status quo."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "In so many ways, the last eight years have been, at best, wasted time so it's nice that on several issues we won't have to wait for progress."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "There's a tendency to get caught up in all the symbolism of Obama. But I realized the reality of things reading this piece -- stem-cell research is coming, folks. Damn."

OBAMA II: Leave Nancy Alone!

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Obama for making a joke about Nancy Reagan during his press conference on Friday:

• NRO's David Freddoso: "Obama just insulted Nancy Reagan...very classy.
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I'm sure it wasn't mean-spirited, but I'd leave Nancy Reagan and astrology alone, thank you."
• Glenn Reynolds: "You've been elected President. Try not to speak carelessly if you can help it."
• Michelle Malkin: "President-Elect D'oh-bama's Gaffe #1: [...] Hillary Clinton did seances. Nancy Reagan did astrology. At least he didn't call her 'Weezy.'"

Power Line's John Hinderaker thinks Obama should emulate Bush: "The only news Barack Obama made in his first post-election press conference was when, in a classless moment, he falsely ridiculed Nancy Reagan for holding 'seances' in the White House. He was then compelled to call her to apologize for what he termed his 'careless remark.' [...] Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn't raise his standards, he will exceed Bush's total before he is inaugurated."

NRO's Andy McCarthy, a strident critic of Obama, thinks people should give him a pass on his Nancy Reagan joke: "C'mon folks, let's not be a bunch of mirthless wusses here. Mark Steyn's cover story for NR's April 21 edition on Mrs. Obama's America was laugh out loud stuff, and we all howled over the unintentionally hysterical New Yorker cover that depicted Michelle as a militant. First families and their eccentricities, real or imagined, have never been off-limits. What Obama said, whether you think it was funny or not (I thought it was kinda funny) was not offensive -- it didn't come close to John McCain's infamous joke (at a 1998 fundraiser) at Chelsea Clinton's expense, and I don't recall too many protests around here about our candidate's occasional low-brow jape. Let's not act like a bunch of Lefties just looking to be aggrieved over this or that slight. This is likely to be a tough stretch, and we'll need to be able to laugh -- at ourselves and at the other side -- to get through it."

OBAMA III: Those Crazy Topekans

Conservative bloggers are outraged that a McDonald's restaurant in Topeka, KS is trying to build support for a national holiday in Obama's honor:

• Malkin: "A national holiday in honor of The One? For heaven's sake. [...] Now, remember: If you oppose the Obama National Holiday, you're a RAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "First, we have a national holiday to honor our presidents. It's called -- President's Day. One can see how this might confuse the national supporters of Hope and Change, but perhaps we can try to rename it into something easier for them to understand. [...] And now the Cult of Obama wants a specific day to honor the object of their adoration, and for what? Getting elected? Isn't that the soft bigotry of low expectations?"
• NRO's Mark Hemingway: "Let's just go ahead and start clearing space on Rushmore too."
• Reynolds: "How about waiting until he's actually done something?"

LIEBERMAN: You're Not In A Position To Negotiate, Joe!

Liberal bloggers firmly believe that Lieberman should give up his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee, and that if he decides to caucus with the GOP senators as a result, then so be it:

• Brian Beutler: "If you wield a congressional oversight gavel, and your buddy's in the White House, you might just conduct exactly zero investigations into presidential wrongdoing. But when the election comes, and your other buddy loses to a guy you don't really like, you might think about becoming a real pest to the new administration. [Sen. Maj. Leader Harry] Reid should really strip Lieberman of his chairmanship."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "Joe Lieberman is entitled to disagree with other Democratic Senators on whatever issue he wants. And it's legitimate for him to express his opinions -- whatever they may be -- through his votes as a Senator. But Lieberman went way beyond voting against his party -- he specifically undercut Barack Obama and others on the very issue Republicans have consistently used since 9/11 to slime Democrats: national security. Lieberman defended [MN Sen.] Norm Coleman when Al Franken raised the issue of Iraq War investigations (in a Senate race, it's worth mentioning, that's in a tight recount). He repeated the smear that Obama voted to 'cut off funding for our troops on the ground.' And at the GOP convention, Lieberman lied about Obama's Senate record. So Lieberman's entitled to his policy differences -- but it's absolutely unacceptable for Joe to maintain oversight of a powerful committee with jurisdiction over the subject he used to attack Democrats. It just doesn't make sense."
• Ezra Klein: "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. But I basically side with the 'kick him out' folks. Unlike [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter, whose minor heterodoxies ended with a pathetic show of groveling and a solemn promise to never, ever, in a million years, ever say an unkind word about one of Bush's judicial nominees, Lieberman's major betrayal of the Democratic Party has been accompanied by a promise to bolt to the Republicans Party if he's not sufficiently stroked. That's not the sort of guy you want in a position of oversight."
• TAPPED's Scott Lemieux: "Reid's choice is obvious: let Lieberman join the Republican conference with no seniority or chairmanships. I completely understand that broad party coalitions inevitably involve making peace with wankers. People who actively support the other party are a different matter. He has no leverage and won't be a reliable cloture vote in any circumstances. Let him walk."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Joe Lieberman is putting out word that if the Democrats don't allow him to keep his chairmanship, he'll take up [Sen. Min. Leader] Mitch McConnell's invitation to join the Republican caucus. I think the answer has to be, go for it. [...] I think much of what Lieberman did over the last year was inexcusable. But magnanimity in victory is always a virtue and usually wise. So I don't think it's necessary to expel him from the caucus. And perhaps there are some perks of seniority he could be allowed to retain. But allowing him to keep his chairmanship is simply unacceptable. It's a position the Democrats hold because of the joint efforts of Democrats across the country pulling together to support Democratic policies and ideals and elect Democratic candidates. For Lieberman to enjoy the fruits of that labor after working so hard to stymie that effort would be unconscionable."

LIEBERMAN II: Playing The National Security Card

Liberal bloggers were disgusted when one of Lieberman's aides claimed that stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee would mean that the Dems were putting politics ahead of nat'l security:

"'Sen. Lieberman prefers to remain in the Democratic caucus,' the aide said. 'However, he believes he should remain as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee....He thinks that political retribution should not go ahead of homeland security.'"

• TPM's Greg Sargent: "Can the Lieberman camp really be arguing that stripping Lieberman of his committee slot is tantamount to putting politics ahead of our safety, because we're so defenseless without him there to protect us? Never mind that Lieberma's performance as chair of the committee was just awful. Lieberman's camp is now sounding a kind of hollow echo of the same silly scare-mongering tactics that he used against Obama on the GOP's behalf during the campaign, only this time in service of holding onto whatever vestiges of influence he has left. It's a coda to this whole affair that's perfect in its desperation and unintentional self-parody."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "For one thing, Lieberman, as chairman for the last two years, barely used his committee to actually explore domestic security policy. For another, it's not as if Lieberman has such a unique expertise that Americans would be at risk if, say, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) chaired the same committee. Or Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) or Thomas Carper (D-Del.) or Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). It's one of those rare arguments from Lieberman that combines arrogance, incompetence, and demagoguery, all at the same time. A rare feat, indeed."
• Beeton: "I suppose it was inevitable that Joe Lieberman would take the fear-mongering he used against Obama in the general, which mirrored the Rovian 'elect Republicans or die' strategy that worked so well for the GOP in 02 & 04, and use it in his campaign to keep his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs."

LIEBERMAN III: "One Of The Most Progressive People," My A**!

Liberal bloggers are annoyed that Reid described Lieberman as "one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut":

"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. But you look at his record, it's pretty good. He comes from one of the most liberal states in the country. He is -- Joe Lieberman is not some rightwing nutcase. Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut."

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Why is Harry Reid praising Joe Lieberman? It's too soon to tell, but this is not a good sign. One would hope with a new Congress, and with more Democrats than ever in Congress, our guys would finally show a spine. Then again, there's a reason the Republicans always accuse us of being weak. But far too often, we are."
• Firedoglake's Teddy Partridge: "Progressive Democrats didn't support John McCain for President. Progressive Democrats didn't undermine our party's nominee by agreeing that it was a good question to ask whether he was a socialist. Progressive Democrats didn't campaign for downticket Republicans -- Joe Lieberman wrote an op-ed for Norm Coleman! He raised money for [ME Sen.] Susan Collins! Joe Lieberman took affirmative steps to increase the size of the Republican Senate caucus. What more evidence is needed to oust Lieberman? [...] This is a test of Harry Reid's leadership. If he fails to oust Lieberman, the caucus should find itself new leadership. Unless the Democratic Senate caucus is happy with Reid's treatment of Lieberman?"
• Benen: "Senate Democrats will make their decision about Lieberman's future in the caucus, and they'll have plenty of information and context to consider. But it's important that senators get beyond the notion that Lieberman is a reliable and consistent progressive voice on everything but military affairs and national security. If only that were true. Even if we put aside his painful betrayals throughout the campaign cycle, there are those actual votes in the Senate to consider, including his support for Bush's judicial nominees, private school vouchers, and partnering with [ex-PA Sen.] Rick Santorum a few years back to promote Bush's 'faith-based' initiative. It's not, in other words, just Iraq policy."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Internet Should Kill 2012 Talk

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini thinks it's way too early to speculate about the GOP's 2012 contenders:

"Barack Obama was not even mentioned as a potential candidate until October 2006. Mitt Romney, by far the most well-prepared of the early 2008 contenders, was defeated in Iowa by Mike Huckabee (who was accused of slacking on the early ground game) and in New Hampshire by John McCain (whose early organization got shredded). The hottest GOP contenders at this point in the last cycle were [ex-VA Sen.] George Allen and [ex-TN Sen.] Bill Frist. And all John McCain's early legwork got him was an excessive burn rate and campaign implosion, until he retooled into a leaner, meaner machine. In October or November of 2007, few people would have predicted Barack Obama or John McCain as the nominees. If we can't predict three months out, what makes us think we can predict three and a half years out?

Nor was 2008 a total fluke. There are structural forces at play here. On the one hand, the campaign cycle has been lengthening. But on the other hand, the Internet, and specifically a richer information ecosystem that allows us to pay more attention to also-rans like Huckabee and Ron Paul is operationalizing the Feiler Faster Thesis where challengers rise and frontrunners implode faster. This means that in a primary, money and organization don't go as far. McCain got nominated with half the resources of some of his competitors. Mike Huckabee got to be the second to last guy standing on financial and organizational fumes. When Barack Obama's YouTube channel is worth more than the entire budget of a respectable primary campaign, you know something is up. So, I implore you, quit focusing on 2012, and focus on 2010 and on showing the Republican Party can rebuild at the state legislative, Congressional, and statewide levels in 2010..."

LEST WE FORGET: This Is Your Brain On Stupid Customers

From Overheard in New York:

Customer: I'll have an egg omelet.
Cook: An egg omelet?
Customer: Yeah, one made with eggs.
Cook: Thank god you mentioned eggs. I was about to give you an omelet solely made from butter!

11/7: Where Does He Go Now?

The fate of ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen Joe Lieberman is the big topic in the blogosphere today, following yesterday's widely publicized meeting between Lieberman and Sen. Maj. Leader Harry Reid. Most liberal bloggers support Reid's desire to remove Lieberman as chairman of the Homeland Security and Gov't Affairs Committee, but a Lieberman aide warned that "losing the chairmanship is unacceptable" and that it might prompt Lieberman to leave the Dem caucus. Nevertheless, lefty bloggers are circulating a petition telling the Dem Steering Committee to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship.

While the netroots obviously have a personal stake in dishing out some payback to their longtime foe, they believe that there are other important reasons for taking away Lieberman's chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. David Sirota explains: "I want him removed from his chairmanship not merely because I don't like him, but because of the real danger Joe Lieberman presents -- Joe Lieberman with subpoena power to investigate the [Barack] Obama administration." Jane Hamsher makes a similar point: "Though Lieberman has not investigated one meaningful scandal in his role as chairman during the [George W.] Bush Administration, we are certain he will only be too happy to cause problems for an Obama administration when 2009 rolls around."

Meanwhile, some conservative bloggers are urging Lieberman to switch parties...

LIEBERMAN: Joe's Gotta Go

Liberal bloggers are urging the Dem Steering Committee to remove Lieberman as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee:

• Open Left's Sirota: "I, like most readers here, don't like Joe Lieberman (obviously). I, like most readers here, want him removed from his chairmanship. But I want him removed from his chairmanship not merely because I don't like him, but because of the real danger Joe Lieberman presents -- Joe Lieberman with subpoena power to investigate the Obama administration. Lieberman has been a partisan attack dog for the Republicans against Obama for many months now. Empowering that attack dog with the subpoena power that comes with a committee chairmanship (and especially on a committee whose role is broad executive investigations) is insane."
• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "Get ready to lobby these senators [on the Steering Committee]. The key isn't to push for Lieberman's ouster from the caucus. We don't need him for control of the chamber given our expanded majority, but if he's a backbencher with no authority, who cares? Let him wallow in our majority stripped of all influence. We could use his votes on important domestic policy like EFCA and whatnot, without having to deal with him becoming a fierce critic of the Obama Administration at the head of the key Homeland Security committee. Heck, throw him a bone with a minor sub-committee chairmanship, the kind they give promising freshman senators to beef up their resumes. That way he can't cry that Democrats are throwing him off the caucus. If he wants to reject that option, and he probably would since it would kind of be an insult, then so be it. Let him reject a gracious Democratic offer, rather than the other way around. But no committee chairmanship. Those need to be reserved for real Democrats and genuine allies."
• The Huffington Post's Jeffrey Feldman: "For two years, the Republican Party falsely accused Barack Obama of hastening the genocide of the Jewish people -- while Sen. Joe Lieberman uttered not one word of rebuke. Even worse, Lieberman gave this sick Republican Party strategy his seal of approval by campaigning for John McCain, in the course of which he repeatedly echoed the lie that Barack Obama was somehow dangerous to Israel. [...] If Harry Reid allows Lieberman to continue to hold authority over other Democrats in the Senate, by retaining his committee chairmanships, then the shame of Lieberman's immoral behavior in the 2008 election will surely stain the Democratic Party."
• Atrios: "It's not exactly news that the man who wants to end the war more than anyone is a liar. He's not someone who can be trusted. Let's hope Reid does the right thing -- not just for the country but for his fellow Democratic senators -- and gives Lieberman the boot."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "It's time for Joe to go."

Meanwhile, Firedoglake's Hamsher has launched a petition urging the Dem Steering Committee to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship: "We've watched for years as Joe called us traitors, lied his face off, stabbed Democrats in the back and did everything he could to keep Barack Obama out of the white house. Lieberman laundered smears that even McCain wasn't willing to launch himself. [...] Make no mistake about it -- Lieberman was openingly threatening the Democratic caucus in his press conference today. Enough is enough. Please sign the petition to the Steering and Outreach Committee, telling them it's time for Joe to go."

LIEBERMAN II: His Just Desserts

Several liberal bloggers believe that stripping Lieberman of his committee chairmanship is not an adequate punishment:

• BooMan: "[Lieberman] must be punished in some way...and losing his committee chair is the bare minimum. The problem is, it's not enough. Lieberman sits on three other committees: Armed Services, Environment & Public Works, and Small Business. I have no problem with Lieberman working on infrastructure, environmental issues, and small business, but he must not be allowed to continue on serving on the Armed Services committee. He will be a Republican voter on the committee and an obvious ally of the Ranking Member, John McCain. Lieberman cannot be trusted to sit in on strategy sessions related to national security. He simply cannot be allowed to stay on Armed Services, or to serve on other intelligence related committees. That should be the penalty. He can take it or leave it. He can caucus with the Republicans if he wants."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "My gut says to kick him out of the caucus altogether."

On the other hand, TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat thinks Lieberman should be given the opportunity to keep his committee chairmanship: "What a weaselly sh*t Lieberman is. That said, I still think the deal should be that Lieberman must never join a GOP filibuster. I would let him keep a committee if he agreed to that."

On the right side of the blogosphere, RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh urges Lieberman to switch parties: "Dear Senator: Switch parties. Or at least, be an unhyphenated Independent and caucus with the Senate Republicans. There is no reason to think that you will ever be treated with respect and dignity in the Democratic Caucus again. Even if you seek to make amends for what Senator Reid perceives to be your apostasy, you will always be viewed with suspicion and bitterness by members of the Democratic Caucus. By contrast, Republicans will welcome you into the fold. You will help cut a Democratic majority and if your presence in the Republican Caucus helps the GOP recapture the majority in the Senate at some point down the line, you can have your chairmanship back. And if your seat makes the difference in that effort -- and who knows? It might -- your power will be especially and particularly enhanced. So make the switch. Take the plunge. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain."

SUMMERS: Not A Netroots Fav

Many liberal bloggers are opposed to the idea of Obama appointing ex-Clinton Treasury Sec. Larry Summers as his Treasury Sec.:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Am I missing something or are there like four or five completely independent reasons not to appoint Larry Summers Treasury Secretary? I'm really having a hard time understanding this one. Just at the level of optics, since the economy is issue number one right now (and not just the real economy of jobs and living standards but the financial architecture itself) and you're trying to look forward not back, why would you pick someone for Treasury who was not only in the Clinton administration but was actually Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration. Not understanding that. Next, management shortcomings and controversial statements about women's brains that got him canned as President of Harvard. And on top of that, the new Treasury Secretary will be charged with instituting a beefed up framework of financial sector regulation. But Summers was a key player in the 1990s deregulatory consensus that laid the groundwork for a lot of these problems. Not that that makes him verboten -- a lot of other people did too. But it does create an element of of cognitive dissonance going into the job."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "We've been hearing Larry Summers name floated as Treasury Secretary. Bad idea. Not only did he not call the financial crisis, but he has foot in mouth disease. What a Treasury Secretary says can move markets in a big way, and Larry is simply too frank, and too unable to control his mouth for the spot. And while yes, he's brilliant, but he's also brilliantly abrasive and his brilliance is primarily in the details, not in the big picture. Such a bad choice for Treasury Secretary and I find it odd that he's even being considered."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Summers was one of the key proponents of the banking deregulation of 1999 that led to the current financial crisis. In addition, Larry Summers has argued that women are innately less gifted in science than men, that 'Africa is Underpolluted', that child sweatshop work in Asia is sometimes justified, and that job destroying trade agreements are good for America. People get stuff wrong all the time. That's not bad. But if you got the big stuff wrong, repeatedly, while being warned against it, you shouldn't be rewarded with a promotion."
• TPMCafe's Dean Baker: "It would be a really bad start to his administration if President Obama picked a Treasury Secretary who shares a substantial part of the blame for the bubble economy and the financial crisis. It will not be easy to pick up the pieces and get the economy back on its feet, but we would be going in the wrong direction to put one of the people responsible for getting us in this mess in the top economic position in the Obama administration."
• The Washington Note's Steve Clemons: "If [Summers] is appointed over [NY Fed. Pres. Timothy] Geithner, [Econ. Prof. Laura] Tyson, and others -- we need to quickly get a sense of whether or not the economic views of Summers have changed. Can he embrace a smarter version of globalization than he helped create? Can he help promote an alternative to the winner takes all capitalism that Summers helped to reify and which made people like Robert Rubin mega-wealthy? Can he embrace a genuine re-write of the American social contract that pushes forward the rights and position of labor? Can he abandon the fiscally conservative ideology of the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project that he and Rubin helped hatch? We need to know the answers to these questions. I find it strange that Obama is seriously considering someone whose previous work and profile is so at odds with the goals Obama has proffered in his campaign. If Summers is appointed, we have to hope that he is not the Summers we knew eight years ago."

MCCAIN: Put A Stop To This, Maverick!

Conservative bloggers are angry that McCain hasn't publicly defended Palin after several of his campaign aides leaked unflattering stories about her to FOX News and Newsweek:

• Michelle Malkin: "My syndicated column today takes on the cowardly character assassins in the McCain campaign who are trying to kneecap Sarah Palin. [...] The question now is whether John McCain -- proud author of books on character and courage, honor and duty -- will just sit on the sidelines and let this debacle continue or stand up and defend the running mate he chose."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "The longer this goes on without a condemnatory statement from Maverick, the more it smells like it's being done with his tacit approval. Then again, people are going to assume it's being done with his tacit approval anyway, so why even get involved?"
• RedState's Academic Elephant: "...What did we hear from the hero John McCain on these scurrilous leaks from his campaign regarding Gov. Palin? As far as I can tell, not one word. Despite how badly they reflect on him -- his original decision to pick her, if she was indeed so shockingly unqualified or on the discipline of his team, which is apparently zero -- he made no effort to stop this or counteract it. He's letting them confirm what the enemy already thinks it knows about Palin, robbing us of a possible candidate down the road. This is his second major violation of [Ronald] Reagan's 11th Commandment, and at this point, I think it's time to cut our losses. We've paid our tuition. McCain' Last Ride has cost us dearly, and I don't think we need to lose Sarah Palin to save his reputation."
• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "This is irritating me deeply. Isn't McCain all about honor? Shooting your running mate for history isn't honorable."

NRO's David Frum blames ex-Palin aide Nicolle Wallace for the leaks: "Wow -- that is some savage cutting & gutting that Nicole Wallace has just performed upon Sarah Palin. Nicole & I crossed swords once, during the Harriet Miers nomination battle. Watching what Nicole can do when she is seriously annoyed, I am grateful that I got away from that fight with nothing worse than a few bumps and bruises. [...] Would it not better serve the cause of understanding for Nicole Wallace to give an on-camera interview to Carl Cameron and state these points in her own voice -- and allow viewers to asses their credibility? Wallace's fingerprints are all over these leaks anyway, so it's not as if she has any anonymity to lose."

Meanwhile, Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau has had enough: "Enough with the graceless savaging of Sarah Palin by McCain staffers. The whole enterprise is ridiculous. Attacks on her do little more than cast aspersions on the judgment of Senator McCain and his staff (those who chose her) and offer aid and comfort to those who treated her most hatefully. It also creates and exacerbates unnecessary tensions in the party based on reasons that have nothing to do with policy or ideology. Come on, people. We lost an election. Let's not lose our dignity along with it."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Appealing To Conservatives And Independents Simultaneously

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

"Why did the Republicans lose ground? I don't agree with everything Frum writes in his book Comeback, but one of the areas I think he's on solid ground is diagnosing the different priorities between independents and Republicans. Independents are deeply anxious about their health insurance, but health care reform isn't a topic that really gets the conservative base jazzed, other than opposing HillaryCare. The Republican base is passionate and focused about the war on terror, but independents have largely forgotten that there is a war going on. (If something blows up tomorrow, this phenomenon will change in a hurry.) Independents and centrists feel great economic anxiety and a sense that their wages are not keeping pace with the costs of modern life; conservatives generally nod when a Republican says 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong.'

The faces of the Republican party, be it the leaders in Congress, the new RNC chairman, some future candidate or some outside voice has to be able to speak to both groups' concerns fluently. In McCain, the party had a candidate who couldn't speak to the independents' concern well (how often did he explain his health care plan in detail?) and who couldn't speak to conservatives as well as Palin. In the end, John McCain spoke most frequently and eloquently about that which stirred John McCain -- i.e., the outrages of federally-funded planetarium projectors in Chicago and bear DNA research in Montana."

LEST WE FORGET: Famous Lines From '80s Anthems Adjusted for the Cost Of Living

McSweeney's Gabrielle Wootton:

• "If you're lost, you can look and you will find me...using GPS or cell-tower triangulation."
• "Our house...in the middle of the street. Our house...brought us a zoning violation and a mortgage default."
• "Push it to the limit -- we'll swear it was identity theft."
• "The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire! Let's put it out so we can get the deposit back."
• "Video killed the radio star ... and video was remanded without bail."

11/6: Sticking By Sarah

Bloggers on the left and right continue to debate the ideological implications of Barack Obama's victory. Liberal bloggers believe that Obama's win -- along with the increased Dem majorities in the House and Senate -- gives Dems a clear mandate. Conservative bloggers, on the other hand, are either (a.) downplaying the size of Obama's win, or (b.) arguing that Obama "did not obtain his vote totals by running as a progressive".

In other news, conservative bloggers are blasting the anonymous John McCain aides who leaked unflattering stories about Sarah Palin to FOX News and Newsweek. Michelle Malkin complains: "The anonymous trashing of Sarah Palin by blabbermouth McCain aides...is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting." It's clear that conservative bloggers like Palin a lot more than they like McCain, and that they will aggressively fight back against anything that could potentially undermine Palin's political future. It's also clear that righty bloggers aren't about to forgive Palin's critics in the conservative intelligentsia.

OBAMA: The People Have Spoken, And They Want Change

Liberal bloggers believe that Obama earned a clear mandate with his resounding win:

• The New York Times' Paul Krugman: "[This was] a magnificent victory for Barack Obama. And bear in mind that the campaign, in its final stages, was really about different philosophies of governing. This wasn't like the 2004 campaign, which was essentially fought over fake issues -- Bush running on national security and social issues, then claiming that he had a mandate to privatize Social Security. In this election, Obama proudly stood up for progressive values and the superiority of progressive policies; John McCain, in return, denounced him as a socialist, a redistributor. And the American people rendered their verdict."
• Daily Kos' georgia10: "Exit polls show that 51% of voters want government to 'do more.' And while 71% of voters said they expected their taxes to go up under Obama's administration, they still voted for him by huge margins. Just 44% of voters (right around McCain's popular vote percentage) believe that Obama is 'too liberal' while 1 in 2 voters thought his ideology was 'just right.' Democrats swept races across the country not in spite of being progressive on the issues that matter most to the American people, but because of it. But if the GOP want to live in its dreamworld where America is a really a 'center-right nation' and suffer more crushing loses in the process, that's fine by me."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "In 2004, George W. Bush won less than 51% of the popular vote, 53% of the available electoral votes, and enjoyed a vote margin of 3 million. In 2008, Barack Obama won 52.3% of the popular vote, 65% of the available electoral votes (67% after North Carolina is called for him), and enjoyed a vote margin of about 7.4 million. [Robert] Novak insisted that Bush's totals 'of course' constituted a 'mandate,' while Obama's do not. Indeed, Media Matters had an item yesterday noting that after the 2004 race, when Bush won a second term with the smallest popular-vote margin since 1976 (excluding the 2000 election) and the lowest electoral vote count for an incumbent president's re-election since 1916, major media figures still rushed to award Bush a 'mandate.' Obama not only cruised to a major victory, but his party saw major gains in the House, Senate, and state houses. If Obama doesn't have a 'mandate' for his policy agenda, the word has no meaning."
• Open Left's David Sirota: "The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus -- a reliable parrot of conventional wisdom -- joins the Punditburo's insistence that the largest progressive mandate in contemporary American history means that obviously -- clearly! -- America remains more conservative than ever. [...Marcus writes that] Obama's 'opponents have painted him as a leftist extremist.' Yet, that supposed 'leftist extremist' won the largest presidential mandate in the last generation. And somehow, having done that, we are supposed to believe that means he should tack to the right. Say what?"

Liberal bloggers are also urging Obama and Dem lawmakers to be bold:

• Open Left's Mike Lux: "With the economy in so much worse shape, with things bound to get worse before they get better, with the problems so big, we had better deliver. Big problems require big solutions. Going slow, being careful, being cautious, trying to solve one little problem at time in a modest, incremental way: it's just not going to work. Barack Obama ran on change. The times require change. Let's not let incrementalists and small-minded ambition keep the big change we need from happening."
• digby: "[Dems] had better keep in mind that they were elected by a lot of new voters and liberals too and they are going to need very high levels of support for a sustained period of time to get anything done. I don't expect them to cater to the base like [Karl] Rove did, but they'd better not take it too much for granted either. We've seen what happened after 2006, when they raised expectations that they would fight Bush hard on the war. Their approval ratings ended up worse than Bush's because they were loathed not only by the right wing (who will loathe them no matter what they do) but by their own base as well. They simply can't afford to let that happen again."

OBAMA II: What Landslide?

Conservative bloggers are arguing that Obama did not win a landslide victory:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "Barack Obama's victory last night was no doubt historic, and the Democrats, as expected, extended their leads in the House and the Senate. But their victory was no landslide, despite what appeared to be overwhelming advantages. Obama won around 52 percent of the popular vote, defeating John McCain by between five and six points. That's nothing like the true landslides of the past: [Ronald] Reagan by ten points in 1980 and 18 in 1984; [Richard] Nixon by 23 in 1972; or even [George H. W.] Bush by eight in 1988. And yet, with hindsight, it is remarkable how much Obama had going for him."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Sure, Barack Obama won an impressive electoral victory, but the popular vote in many states was quite narrow, the margin overall was decisive but not overwhelming and, moreover, the House and Senate losses were modest by historical standards. It wasn't 1980 or 1984, to be sure. Considering the incumbent president's unpopularity and the economy, one might have expected far bigger margins."
• RedState's Neil Stevens: "[Dwight] Eisenhower 1952 and 1956. [Lyndon] Johnson 1964. Nixon 1972. Reagan 1980 and 1984. Those elections set the standard for a blowout. Obama? His win doesn't look like those other Presidents I just listed. He's just slightly below average, sorry. So rest at ease, Republicans. Even if this win isn't a fluke, it's not a permanent game changer."

On the left side of the blogosphere, Oliver Willis responds: "Conservatives, quit trying to say that Barack Obama didn't kick your asses from coast to coast. McCain lost by 6%, twice Bush's winning margin in 2004. Also, the margin of victory is near 7 million votes. And you lost by 176 electoral votes (and likely 15 more when North Carolina is officially called). [...] As our President-elect said, 'Change has come to America'."

Meanwhile, The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll argues that Obama did not run as a liberal: "After a hard-fought campaign nearly two years in the making, last night a candidate was elected president of the United States. That candidate promised to 'cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families', expand the Army by 65,000 and the Marines by 27,000, and enact 'a net spending cut' for the federal government. Lower taxes, a strong defense and shrinking the size of government. These are core conservative beliefs. Anyone who claims yesterday's election was the end of conservatism simply was not paying attention to the campaign."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias disagrees: "The day before the election, Barack Obama was a socialist. The day after the election, he only won because he's a centrist in line with the views of 'center-right' America. [...] The truth is that Obama ran to the progressive center left behind in the wake of conservatism's catastrophic failures."

PALIN: The Rightroots Leap To Her Defense

Conservative bloggers are blasting the anonymous McCain aides who leaked unflattering stories about Palin to FOX News and Newsweek:

• NRO's Michael Ledeen: "The continued trashing of Sarah Palin -- IMHO the most qualified and by far the most exciting candidate of the four -- is very disappointing, and the rash of unseemly whining from the McCain camp just shows once again why so many of us were depressed when he won the nomination."
• Malkin: "The anonymous trashing of Sarah Palin by blabbermouth McCain aides who are leaking to Fox News is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. [...] Let's assume the rumor-mongers are telling the truth for a moment. Who does it damn more: Sarah Palin or McCain and his vetters who green-lighted her for the vice presidential nomination? Don't need an Ivy League degree to figure that one out. Sarah Palin worked her heart out. She energized tens of thousands to come out who would have otherwise stayed home. She touched countless families. I didn't agree with everything she said on the campaign trail. But two fundamental conservative stands she took mattered greatly to me: She vigorously defended the Second Amendment and the sanctity of life more eloquently in practice than any of the educated conservative aristocracy. And she did it all with a tirelessness and infectious optimism that defied the shameless, bottomless attempts by elites in both parties to bring her and her family down. Shame on the smearers who don't have the balls to show their faces."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "RedState is pleased to announce it is engaging in a special project: Operation Leper. We're tracking down all the people from the McCain campaign now whispering smears against Governor Palin to Carl Cameron and others. [...] We intend to constantly remind the base about these people, monitor who they are working for, and, when 2012 rolls around, see which candidates hire them. Naturally then, you'll see us go to war against those candidates. It is our expressed intention to make these few people political lepers. [...] Initial list: (1.) Nicolle Wallace (2.) Steve Schmidt (3.) Mark McKinnon."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "I assume this is a sign that Maverick's headed back to the center, because if he thinks the base is sore at him now, wait until his cronies' attempts to scapegoat their idol start percolating."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "That such a bunch of clueless campaign hacks would then go out and trash Palin behind her back..."
• Glenn Reynolds: "What a bunch of losers. The McCain campaign had its flashes of brilliance, but overall it was a lousy effort. Post-election slams against Sarah Palin merely underscore its not-ready-for-primetime quality, and would make me, if I were a Republican candidate, -- or donor -- far less interested in having anything to do with the slammers in a future campaign."
• Rubin: "Gosh, if you had to come up with a plot to endear her to the base, increase anger against the McCain bumblers and lift the fighting spirits of conservatives you couldn't come up with a better idea than continuing to trash Palin in the media. Is it a Rovian plot? [...] But all of this, I must admit, also reflects on the non-leadership qualities of the former presidential nominee. John McCain was never known as one to resolve conflicts or knock heads. That's how he wound up bankrupting his own campaign in the primary and then devolving into bitter infighting in the general election. Watching his team engage in vicious, public fighting suggests that perhaps he was never the ideal person for a chief executive role. After all, if the campaign was this bad, imagine what the White House would have been like."

EMANUEL: The Netroots Are Conflicted

Liberal bloggers are ambivalent about the news that Obama has offered the WH Chief-of-Staff position to IL Rep. Rahm Emanuel:

• Ezra Klein: "I'm of mixed feelings on Rahm Emanuel's selection as Obama's White House chief of staff. Emanuel is a brawler. He's legendarily tough and effective and ruthless. [...] But part of Emanuel's job will be to advise on what is politically possible. And he has always portrayed himself as a hard-headed realist on such matters, with a late-term Clintonite's allergy to ambition. In his book The Plan, Emanuel warns Democrats away from attempting universal health insurance or comprehensive reform, and suggests they content themselves with expanding S-CHIP. [...] Of course, Emanuel won't be setting priorities. He'll simply be advising President Obama while he sets priorities, then working to carry them out. If Obama says the administration should do universal health care, then Emanuel will do it. And he's probably exactly the sort of ruthless political fighter you'd want in service of that project. But it's also possible he'll work to persuade Obama not to do universal health care, and instead to take a dimmer view of the potential for change, reform, and improvement. [...] This is a selection that suggests Obama is taking the politics of congressional persuasion extremely seriously, and in that sense, it's heartening. What we don't know is whether he's also signaling agreement with the play-it-safe governance that Emanuel has long championed."
• Daily Kos' Kagro X: "Rahm gets mixed reviews around here, to put it mildly, on his record as a member of the House leadership. We know he's a rough-and-tumble type, but he's also shown us a cautious side, as when he resisted for many months in giving his assent to the move to bring contempt of Congress votes against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten to the House floor. But even in his caution, he was motivated by brass tacks considerations that were never at odds with that rough-and-tumble reputation. He resisted the vote because he was considering it from an electoral perspective, as he appears to consider almost every issue. Will it help or hurt Dems next election day? That was always his bottom line."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "With Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, I think we can safely bet that Blue Dogs will have a friend in the White House."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "I don't share Rahm's political objectives -- he's the architect of NAFTA, a 'free trade' hound and the godfather of the Heath Schuler immigration bill, which seeks to privatize the border and give illegal immigrants no path to citizenship. But Rahm doesn't do 'bipartisan' -- which I've always sort of liked about him."

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz likes the idea of Emanuel as Obama's CoS: "I think it's a good idea. Emanuel knows how to run a staff, and a White House staff at that. He also knows the Hill and has the respect of leadership in both chambers (and both parties). He knows how to win politically and policy-wise. One of the biggest mistakes that a president can make is choosing an inexperienced or ineffective CoS, and Obama is now showing that he's learned from history. [...] To address Ezra's worries that the potential Chief of Staff is a policy minimalist: Perhaps. I think a lot of that reputation comes from working with Bill Clinton and co-writing a book with Bruce Reed, a man not known for his big ideas. Emmanuel has been advising Obama since the primaries, so I'm not too worried that Obama's approach to policy making will change that drastically even if the Chicago representative acquires a larger role. But Emanuel had a big idea before a lot of other people did: That Democrats could take back the House of Representatives and change the electoral map in the country. And then he went out and did it. If you're looking for a bold Democrat to run your White House operation, I'm not sure you could find anyone bolder."

EMANUEL II: Meet The New Politics, Same As The Old Politics

Conservative bloggers are very critical of Obama's choice for WH CoS:

• Townhall's Jonathan Garthwaite: "The pick of Rahm Emanuel as Obama's Chief of Staff is a signal that Obama's 'post-partisan' image is just that -- image. [...] There's no question in my mind that picking Emanuel sets up the White House to be an aggressive operation ready to ram through Obama's spread-the-wealth-surrender-overseas agenda."
• RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "If you're reading tea leaves for what kind of Administration Obama will run, Emanuel does not exactly embody 'new politics' and a 'post-partisan' future. He's a Chicago Democrat who worked as a 'senior adviser and chief fundraiser' (his words) for Mayor [Richard] Daley and later worked in the Clinton White House, and he's known as a hardball-playing scorched-earth arch-partisan in the Tom DeLay mold."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "Obama's apparent selection of Rahm Emanuel for White House chief of staff is an extremely disconcerting (if not wholly surprising) first indication on the 'which Obama will we get' question. It suggests both that he wants to be ruthless and partisan and that he does not have a clear sense of how the White House works. [...Obama] will need a chief of staff with a sense of the gravity of the choices the president faces, and one capable of moving the staff to decision, keeping big egos satisfied and calm, and resisting the pressure to be purely reactive to momentary distractions. None of this spells Rahm Emanuel. There is definitely a place for a Rahm Emanuel type of brilliant ruthless shark in a White House staff, but not in the Chief's office. Not a good first sign."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: We've Come A Long Way, But We Still Have A Long Way To Go

digby laments the passage of Proposition 8 in CA, which bans gay marriage:

"How people can vote for the first African American president in American history, with all that implies, while simultaneously voting to discriminate against gays is testament to the incoherence of American politics and the lack of clear cut philosophy guiding people's choices. Everyone says there's too much ideology in our politics but I'd say there isn't enough. There isn't enough common sense either. Discrimination against others just because you don't like how they live their lives is against the very essence of the two pillars of America -- liberty and equality. To fail to see that even as you vote for an historic, important first African American is incoherent.

I keep hearing about how this will right itself in the long run, that it's just a matter of waiting until this new generation gets old enough and then gay rights will magically be 'granted.' I hope that's true. But to paraphrase a saying that's been overused lately -- in the long run all of today's gay partners and gay parents will be dead. These soothing tones of 'patience' and 'don't worry' don't mean much when you consider that you only have one life to live."

LEST WE FORGET: Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, 'It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break.'"

11/5: Yes, He Did

While most liberal bloggers expected Barack Obama to defeat John McCain by a sizeable margin, they were still thrilled when it happened. Lefty bloggers described Obama's victory as "overwhelming" and "extraordinary". Many felt "an immense sense of relief" that Americans chose to elect a Dem president to follow George W. Bush. John Aravosis echoed the feelings of many liberal bloggers when he declared, "The long national nightmare has come to an end."

Conservative bloggers had a rough night, obviously. While most of them congratulated Obama on his victory, many were frustrated that Obama had managed to win in spite of his "radicalism" and other alleged defects.

Meanwhile, lefty and righty bloggers have already begun arguing about the degree of public support for Obama's agenda. Several conservative bloggers are arguing that Obama's resounding victory does not give him "an unfettered mandate for left-wing policies across the board", since the U.S. remains a "center-right country". Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, believe that this election was "a repudiation of Republicans and of conservatism" that demonstrates the electorate's desire for progressive change.

OBAMA: And The Landslide Brought Me Down...

Needless to say, liberal bloggers were pretty excited about Obama's victory:

• Atrios: "Holy. Fucking. Shit."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "I am still in shock. This was a damned landslide."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "...I just want to say that I feel, well, humbled at the sublime face of promise and history. Something very good happened tonight. I'll write about it for ages. Right now, it is too overwhelming."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I'm not embarrassed to admit that I'm at a loss for words. Eleven months ago today, Obama told a group of Iowans, 'You know, they said this day would never come.' And yet, he we are. It's an extraordinary moment to savor."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "President Barack Hussein Obama. Get used to it. The former seat of the Confederacy just picked a black man for President of the United States, and this election is now over."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "This is a smashing repudiation of the hideous right-wing faction that has wreaked so much damage on the country, and an obviously historic night as well. But this is merely the first step, with much work remaining, for reversing what has been done over the last eight years."

Another common sentiment in the liberal blogosphere was relief:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "I guess I should be feeling a sense of excitement, but what I mostly feel is an immense sense of relief. Just a complete, unmitigated, totally drained sense of relief that George Bush will finally be packed up and sent home to Crawford. For just this moment, I don't even care whether Barack Obama will be a great president. I'm just grateful that for the next four years our president will be at least minimally competent and grounded in reality. Thank God."
• Ezra Klein: "My basic emotion is relief. The skill of an Obama administration has yet to be proven. The structure of our government will prove a more able opponent of change than John McCain. But for the first time in years, I have the basic sense that it's going to be okay. Not great, necessarily. And certainly not perfect. But okay. The country will be led by decent, competent people who fret over the right things and employ the tools of the state for recognizable ends. They may not fully succeed. But then, maybe they will. At the least, they will try. And if they fail in their most ambitious goals, maybe they will simply make things somewhat better. After the constant anxiety and uncertainty of the last eight years, maybe that's enough."
• AMERICAblog's Aravosis: "I'm exhausted. That's the overall emotion I have right now. Utter exhaustion. With an undercurrent of relief. [...] The long national nightmare has come to an end."

OBAMA II: Credit Where Credit's Due

A number of conservative bloggers complimented Obama and paid tribute to the historical significance of his victory:

• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "[Obama] had a lot of things going for him this year...but it is remarkable how few mistakes he made, how disciplined and unflappable he was. I do not agree that running a campaign well is much of a qualification for office, but it is nonetheless impressive. And, of course, the fact that a black man has won the presidency is genuinely thrilling. Now I hope he proves to be more moderate than his record indicates."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Congratulations to Barry O on a race superbly run and to our country for not having let the wrong reasons deter it from making the wrong choice. I'll never be a fan, but I swear I'll never take a nutroots posture either in relishing his failures because it helps my party. Like it or not, he's my president. As a great man once said, country first."
• NRO's Jim Manzi: "Legal racial segregation was prevalent in America within living memory, yet we appear to have just elected a black man to the position of maximum honor, authority and influence in the country. The manner of this political victory is important, as well. This was not some prize bestowed upon him, and Barack Obama didn't just buy a winning lottery ticket; he out-smarted and out-worked both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. [...] There are about 1,460 days until the next Presidential election, and I assume that I will spend approximately the next 1,459 of them opposing Barack Obama. But I'm spending today proud abut what my country has overcome."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "It is a wonderful thing to have the first African-American president. It is a wonderful thing that in a country where feelings are so intense that power can be transferred so peacefully. Let us hope that the Obama his most dedicated -- and most sensible! -- fans see turns out to be the real Obama. Let us hope that Obama succeeds and becomes a great president, for all the right reasons."
• The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "Obama has just been elected President of a nation in which he could have been bought and sold as a slave just seven generations ago. I don't think there are any words adequate to the occasion of America electing its first black President, so I'll just say this: This may be a bleak day for the Republican Party and for conservatism, but come what may in the years ahead, it's a great day for our country."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "I would have preferred a different result tonight, but I need to comment on the obvious -- the fact that a black man can be elected President of the United States is a great development for our nation."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Although I would have certainly preferred to have John McCain in the White House, it will at least be nice to finally see a black American become President. Conservatives have been saying America isn't a racist nation for a long time. This proves we're right. Conservatives have been saying that we don't need Affirmative Action in this country. This proves we're right."

OBAMA III: Bah, Humbug!

Other conservative bloggers were in no mood to praise Obama:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "What freaks me out about this election is how oblivious to facts people have been. Everything about Obama's judgment and radicalism -- whether Sean Hannity or Stanley Kurtz or Andy McCarthy etc. is telling you about it -- was essentially deemed irrelevant (including largely by the McCain campaign, save for [Sarah] Palin eventually talking about [William] Ayers). Abortion? Near no one outside a handful of conservatives were talking about his record on infanticide -- beyond abortion. People are in for a rude awakening."
• NRO's John Derbyshire: "It is of course a great thing that we are (it seems pretty certain) electing a black President. It's just a crying shame it had to be this shallow, empty man, who has never shown a flicker of interest in wealth creation, whose head is stuffed with all the vapid nostrums of 1980s student leftism, and who seems -- putting the most charitable construction on it -- not to mind the brazenly thuggish tactics of his supporters."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "From Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright, to 'bitter-clingers,' to 'spreading the wealth,' to giving McCain the middle finger, to Black Panthers with batons on Election Day (just to name a few) -- there were plenty of things that popped-up which might have hurt Obama. ... None of them did. [...] Barack Obama was the teflon candidate. Will he be a teflon president?"
• RedState's Neil Stevens: "Point one: There's no need to start pointing fingers within the party. This election was on style, not substance. No faction's to blame, and no policy is at fault. We know this because Obama won. He ran on no ideas at all. [...] Point two: This isn't the end of America. Our values are more resilient than Obama is strong. Our civil institutions are stronger than Obama is socalist. Our nation is greater than any one man, including the President. We will endure anything that happens under his Presidency."

Townhall's Amanda Carpenter finds a silver lining in Obama's victory: "It's going to be very liberating to be able to fight bad policy from a completely honest standpoint. Meaning, conservatives would be able to confront terrible ideas, like the bailout bill, head-on without having to worry about what the Executive branch might do to undermine the concerns."

OBAMA IV: Mandate? What Mandate?

Several conservative bloggers are arguing that Obama's victory should not be seen as evidence that the country has moved left:

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "This country is still very much a center-right country. Despite an economic crisis, two wars, wrong track numbers that have reached nearly 80%, a Republican President whose popularity rating is at about 25% or so and a massive fundraising machine for the Obama campaign that was made possible by Barack Obama's decision to break his campaign promise and opt out of the public financing system, as of the time of this writing, Barack Obama is only ahead by a mere 3% in the popular vote -- a margin of about 3 million votes. He is, at the time of this writing, a 51% President. Is this impressive? Sure. Is the Electoral College margin impressive? Absolutely. But the popular vote shows no landslide whatsoever for Barack Obama."
• NRO's Lisa Schiffren: "There has been a lot of preliminary chatter tonight about whether we remain a 'center-right' country, or have we gone 'center left'? We'll have to see. It's shaping up as a strong electoral win for Obama. And GOP Senators are going down right and left. (Right. Not left.) But for the moment I am seeing a popular vote tally of 50% D to 49% R (on Fox). The popular vote is the better indicator of the state of ideological division in the nation. Unless the popular vote becomes much more disparate, it looks to me as if we have the same very clear, very even division we've had for the past almost two decades. What may be changing is the composition of the left side of the country. They are going further left. Since they will have the power, that's a problem. But it doesn't mean as much for the future of the country as the lefty commentariat would like."
• Michelle Malkin: "Obama's popular vote total is a lot smaller than most polls showed. [...] Democrats won the White House, but they do not have an unfettered mandate for left-wing policies across the board."

An exception is Douthat, who believes that Obama has won a mandate: "[Obama's] campaign wasn't addressed to me: It was addressed to the constituents of a potential center-left majority, and that's the majority he won tonight. Whether this majority holds together will depend on how he governs, but for the moment he has achieved something that no Democratic politician has achieved in a generation: He's carved out a mandate to take America at least some distance in a leftward direction, and he has left the conservative opposition demoralized, disorganized, and arguably self-destructing."

OBAMA V: You're Darn Right He Has A Mandate!

Liberal bloggers are arguing that Obama's resounding victory indicates that a majority of Americans do indeed want progressive change:

• Mark Kleiman: "Note to wingnut pundits: Your candidate called our candidate a socialist. None of you pointed out that your candidate was full of it. Our candidate won convincingly. You can't come back now and announce that he country is still 'center-right' and that the winner has no madate for progressive policy."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Socialism comes to America...and yet somehow that's going to count as proof that we're a center-right nation."
• Klein: "According to recent campaign narratives, the American people have now given Barack Obama an overwhelming mandate for the following projects: (1) Socialism. (2) Putting the coal industry out of business. (3) Wealth spreading. (4) More socialism. (5) Making Joe the Plumber's life a living hell. (6) Taking away everyone's guns. Even those held by police. (7) Government-run health care. Government-run mandate health care. Indeed, a mandate for government-run health care with an individual mandate! (8) Reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. (9) Surrendering in Iraq. ... Am I missing anything? This is going to be a helluva first 100 days."
• Bowers: "This is the progressive movement's mandate. A mandate to end the war. A mandate for universal health care. A mandate to solve the financial crisis even if it means nationalization and harsh measures against Wall Street. A mandate to repair the environment. A mandate to restore the middle class. A mandate for a truly free and open media. This is our mandate. The country is with us."
• Firedoglake's Ian Welsh: "This election is a repudiation of Republicans and of conservatism, and a cry from the American people, a demand, to do things differently. If the Democrats do that, if they return to Washington and build a new era which is not fundamentally conservative at its roots, but which is progressive, they will be rewarded with a shift in power which will last a generation."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Setting A Low Bar

The New Republic's Franklin Foer:

"It's a good to have a president again. The last couple of years we haven't had one -- or rather we have one who decided to give up after failing badly. This has been an especially painful vacuum during the collapse of the economy, and in the face of our diminished reputation in the world. There's been no one to reassure the country, and no sign that a leader was actually tending to the national well being.

Watching the tears flow tonight -- and shedding a couple myself -- the toll of the last few years came home. Of course, the historic dimensions of tonight inspired these. But we also needed a good national cry, and, more to the point, a leader. As others have noted tonight, Obama won't have to do much to look good in comparison -- a little energy, a bit of heartfelt optimism, a sense that we put a modicum of forethought into our policies. I have some hope that Obama can do more than clear that low bar. (His speech tonight struck all the right notes.) But for the time being, I'll take having a sentient being in charge."

LEST WE FORGET: Nation Finally Shitty Enough To Make Social Progress

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- After emerging victorious from one of the most pivotal elections in history, president-elect Barack Obama will assume the role of commander in chief on Jan. 20, shattering a racial barrier the United States is, at long last, shitty enough to overcome.

Although polls going into the final weeks of October showed Sen. Obama in the lead, it remained unclear whether the failing economy, dilapidated housing market, crumbling national infrastructure, health care crisis, energy crisis, and five-year-long disastrous war in Iraq had made the nation crappy enough to rise above 300 years of racial prejudice and make lasting change.

'Today the American people have made their voices heard, and they have said, "Things are finally as terrible as we're willing to tolerate,"' said Obama, addressing a crowd of unemployed, uninsured, and debt-ridden supporters. 'To elect a black man, in this country, and at this time -- these last eight years must have really broken you.'

Added Obama, 'It's a great day for our nation.'"

11/4: Final Predictions!

Most liberal bloggers expect Barack Obama to win today's election by a sizeable margin. Markos Moulitsas is particularly optimistic, predicting a 390 electoral vote landslide for Obama. Other liberal bloggers are more conservative in their projections, but nearly all of them expect Obama to win at least 300 EV's. Lefty bloggers also expect Dems to pick up 20+ House seats and either 7 or 8 Senate seats (although few believe that Dems will attain a 60-seat majority).

Most conservative bloggers also expect Obama to win, although they think it will be a closer race than do their liberal counterparts. A few righty bloggers think John McCain will win in a squeaker, but they are undoubtedly in the minority.

PREDICTIONS: Entering The Age Of Obama

Most liberal bloggers are predicting a sizeable Obama victory in which the Dem nominee wins over 300 electoral votes:

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "Popular vote: O+9 (54-45-1); Electoral College: Obama 390, McCain 148."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Electoral Vote: Obama 353--185 McCain; National Popular Vote: Obama 52.8%--45.7% McCain."
• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Obama -- 321-217 ([John] Kerry states + CO, NM, IA, VA, NC, OH)."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "I see Barack Obama taking home the popular vote by roughly a 52 percent to 46 percent margin. In the electoral college, I see a 357 to 181 split for Obama that works out as follows: Obama taking all of the Kerry states, plus the [Al] Gore states of Iowa and New Mexico; Obama picking up the traditional swing states of Ohio and Florida; Obama winning the emerging swing states of Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada and Colorado; Obama picking off a single electoral vote in Nebraska; and Obama gaining three more electoral votes by carrying either either North Dakota or Montana."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "52.2% [Obama] to 45.8% [McCain] -- a 6.4 percent margin. The last days national trend in every poll thus far (there are a few outstanding) is toward Obama. [...] At the EV level, MyDD's counter has 338-200, which sounds good. I am a little bit nervous that IN, MO, and NC have all flipped back to McCain during the last week. McCain also has increased numbers in FL and OH, both of which I could see him winning. In VA, Obama has fallen below 50 percent on RCP, which could mean trouble. Both NV and CO have had recent polls showing it close. [...] My worst case scenario is that VA & PA are 'too close to call' by the networks and we are up late waiting for the NV results to come in...the best is that Obama hits 400 by winning all the toss-ups, plus upsets in GA and AZ."
• Al Giordano: "Obama 307 Electoral Votes, McCain 231. [...] I have leapt North Carolina and Nevada ahead of other states where Obama has been polling better than in those places because the combination of changing demographics in these growing states, new voter registration numbers and early voting totals, I believe, will place them in Obama's column. Very similar demographic and organizing factors were at work all year in Colorado and Virginia. [...] But while this year is demonstrating to America and the world that a new country is emerging from the ashes of the old, there are segments of older populations in Florida and Appalachia (which includes a significant swathe of Ohio) whom I believe, based in part on my reporting from the ground, that pollsters have marked as 'undecided' or 'won't tell' but whom will vote -- however unenthusiastically -- for McCain."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Obama's going to win by 5-6 points (maybe more!), and [tonight] the most disastrous presidency in modern history will finally begin the shamefaced descent into the memory hole that it so richly deserves. I can't wait."

PREDICTIONS II: Red Dawn Is Upon Us

Most conservative bloggers are also predicting an Obama victory, albeit by a narrower margin:

• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "My best guess is that McCain wins Florida and Missouri, while Obama wins Ohio. That would put the final count at Obama (311) vs. McCain (227) -- but that may turn out to be too optimistic..."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "I'm going to put it in the neighborhood of a 52-48, 51-48-1, 52-47-1 popular vote victory for Obama. Going down the list, state by state, I come up with a 286-252 electoral vote victory for Obama. If Pennsylvania flips to red, it would actually be a 273-265 McCain victory."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Obama 318, Maverick 220, with The One pulling 51 percent nationwide to McCain's 47. I gave McCain Ohio partly because he and Palin have spent so much time there but mainly because I don't have the stomach to sketch out a truly gruesome landslide, my reputation for Eeyore-ism notwithstanding."
• The Atlantic's Ross Douthat: "Obama 52%, McCain 47%, and the following electoral-vote breakdown: Obama 311, McCain 227."

Many conservative bloggers are extremely pessimistic about McCain's chances:

• The Next Right's Sean Oxendine: "At this point, the polls would have to be catastrophically wrong for Obama to lose."
• AmSpec Blog's Robert Stacy McCain: "If there is a [McCain] miracle, I will be shocked and gratified. Given the overwhelming contrary evidence, however, I refuse to hope. Hope is for chumps."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Obama has a significant lead nationally, as well as in Pennsylvania. Perhaps hundreds of public polls are completely mistaken and McCain will pull off the greatest upset in history today, but I can't base my analysis on a gut feeling or what I hope will happen, I can only dispassionately draw a conclusion based on the empirical data available to me, as well as my own hands on observations covering the campaign for two years now."

Other righty bloggers are more optimistic:

• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "I think John McCain will win a squeaker over Barack Obama, 273-265, by holding Florida, Nevada, and adding Pennsylvania as a trade for Virginia."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "I think that McCain's going to squeak through on this one..."
• NRO's Jonah Goldberg: "I was just playing with the RCP electoral map for the first time in a while (I used to play with it all the time, but then it got depressing). And I have to say, it's actually much easier to see how McCain could pull it off than I had thought. That's not to say McCain's got a cakewalk ahead of him. [...] But I just thought it would be much harder to get McCain past 270 than it is. If McCain can win Pennsylvania, he can be president. Let's hope Thomas Frank finally breaks through to the masses and all of those voters dependent on the coal industry vote their narrow economic interests!"

DEM STRATEGY: Fighting Back The DLC Wing

Liberal bloggers are criticizing recent columns by Dem strategists Doug Schoen and Mark Penn, who urge the hypothetical Obama administration to stick to "centrism" and "conciliation." Liberal bloggers perceive Schoen's and Penn's argument as an attempt to pre-emptively constrain Obama's progressive agenda:

• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "We'll know soon enough whether Democrats have a good Election Day or not, but Doug Schoen is already urging the party not to perceive potentially sweeping victories as an endorsement of the Democratic agenda. [...Schoen argues that] if voters turn out in record numbers, elect Democrats to control almost everything, and deliver a 'wholesale rejection' of conservative Republicans, Democrats shouldn't consider this a mandate for change. Indeed, as far as Schoen is concerned, if Democratic policy makers try to implement Democratic policy ideas after Democratic victories, the party will surely be punished by voters. [...] I suspect Obama, given what we know of his style and temperament, would make good-faith efforts to encourage Republicans to support his policy goals. But Schoen's advice seems misguided -- if Obama wins, he should scale back on the agenda voters asked him to implement? He should water down his agenda, whether it has the votes to pass or not? He should put 'conciliation' at the top of his priority list? And what, pray tell, does a Democratic majority do if/when Republicans decide they don't like Democratic ideas, don't care about popular mandates or polls, and won't work with Dems on issues that matter? Do Democrats, at that point, simply stop governing, waiting for a mysterious 'consensus' to emerge?"
• Open Left's David Sirota: "Mark Penn joins fellow corporate pollster Doug Schoen, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer and Jon Meacham as the latest member of the Punditburo to insist that no matter what happens on election day, America is a center-right nation, and therefore a President Obama must not govern as a progressive. [...] Penn is following Schoen's lead in making the Democratic side of this Establishment argument -- using the manufactured storyline of Bill Clinton's supposed actions to claim that if a President Obama governs as a progressive, he will end up like Clinton in 1994. Not only is the storyline wholly fake, it implies that nothing has changed in America since 1994. That is, it implies with a straight face that the [George W.] Bush years and the backlash to those years did nothing to move the country in a progressive direction. [...] Look, I'm all for Obama governing as a 'centrist' -- as long as he recognizes that the actual 'center' of American public opinion is far different from the 'center' as defined by corporate-hired pollsters like Penn, and the rest of the Establishment Punditburo."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "The real thing that the next administration needs to do is to avoid failure. In particular, the country clearly faces a serious economic challenge. What the next administration needs -- and what the next congress needs -- is policies that will work to restore prosperity. If the administration signs into law a recovery program that, whether popular or not at the time, delivers the goods in terms of restoring prosperity, then the president and the congress will be in good shape politically. By contrast, if they can't do so, they'll suffer. Similarly, a health reform plan that works will be rewarded. That's the real issue here -- not policies that 'are seen as too far left' or policies that are seen as too far right, but policies that are seen as failing."

Atrios makes a similar argument: "No matter how much Obama wins by, if he wins, the media will have Joe Lieberman and Harold Ford explain to us what it really means, which is that the American public supports exactly what Harold Ford supports. The establishment is 'center right,' whatever that means, and no matter what public sentiment actually is, they will tell you that the American People support their agenda."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The First Internet Election

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"If Republicans conclude that 2008 was simply a mechanical failure -- that it was all about how Barack Obama 'used' the Internet or ran an otherwise flawless campaign -- then they will draw the wrong lessons from this year. [...] None of this would have been possible had Obama not been the cult figure we first saw at the 2004 Democratic convention. Had it been another candidate with the 25-person new media team, the corporate graphic design team in-house, a founder of Facebook on staff, the millions spent on search marketing alone, we still would have applauded, but it wouldn't have been the same. Because there has to be something organically right about it for it to work. This is why some candidates and causes catch on online and others just don't, despite trying every tactic in the book.

The central fact of Obama is the incredible political skill of the candidate. And a campaign was built around him that complemented his strengths. Technology allowed the enormous energy around a candidate like Obama to be harnessed in ways that tangibly helped the campaign, first by dramatically changing the fundraising landscape, and second by making possible a massive influx of volunteer energy (that the publicly funded campaigns of yesteryear simply couldn't have digested). In that it allowed him to reach for the $1 billion spending mark, the Internet was absolutely central to Obama's campaign, even if only a small fraction of that money was spent online.

But as important as these strategies and tactics were, the fundamental building block is the candidate. The candidates who are successful online are the ones who don't just lead campaigns or political parties -- they lead movements. When they ask people to get involved, they really mean it. Our 2012 candidate has to be comfortable with building a movement. Before a change in strategy can work, our candidates need to change. Layering a good Internet strategy on top of someone running for President of the cocktail party circuit whose campaign only cares about bundling the most big checks in Q1 or Q2 of 2011 will not work. That model died in 2008."

LEST WE FORGET: Struggling Lower-Class Still Unsure How Best To Fuck Selves With Vote

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- As election day nears, millions of the nation's poorest voters have reportedly yet to settle on the most profound and enduring way to completely fuck themselves over when they head to the polls this year.

'On the one hand, I'm pretty sure Barack Obama will undermine my best interests by maintaining the same centrist, pro-corporate policies of previous Democratic administrations,' said Jim Estey, 34, a recently laid-off assembly-line worker. 'Conversely, I agree with McCain and Palin on abortion, which might just balance out the fact that they'll further marginalize people like me by supporting deregulation and slashing social programs. So it's pretty much a toss-up at this point.'

Though such behavior appears to directly undermine their own well-being, lower-income voters have historically supported candidates determined to screw them six ways to Sunday, including Bill Clinton, who incarcerated them in record numbers and cut the welfare benefits many depended on for day-to-day sustenance, and George W. Bush, who widened the gap between them and the rich and sent thousands of them to die in Iraq. This year's election is reportedly unique in that the nation's poor must not only weigh how deeply and painfully their chosen candidate will penetrate their rectums, but must also consider unforeseen outside circumstances -- such as economic collapse and terrorism -- that might allow the next president to bend them over and brutally rape them in ways they never thought possible."

11/3: Caught On Tape

Lately, the conservative blogosphere has been obsessed with various audio and video tapes that they believe to be damaging to Barack Obama's presidential prospects. Conservative bloggers spent the early part of last week buzzing about a 2001 audio clip (which was hyped by Matt Drudge) in which Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren to pursue "redistribution of wealth." Righty bloggers thought that Obama's comments revealed his "socialism" and "Marxism". Conservative bloggers spent the latter part of the week complaining about the Los Angeles Times' refusal to release a video tape of Obama praising Palestinian academic Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet. One prominent righty blogger claimed that the tape featured Obama "toasting a known Islamic terrorist" and "condemning Israel" -- which, if true, would obviously hurt Obama's candidacy. Now, conservative bloggers are buzzing about a Jan. 2008 audio tape (which, not incidentally, was also hyped by Drudge) in which Obama asserted that his cap-and-trade proposals would "bankrupt" those who tried to build new coal-powered plants. Righty bloggers believe that Obama's remarks could hurt him in coal states such as PA, OH, and WV.

At the moment, it doesn't appear that any of these tapes have damaged Obama's standing in the polls. But conservative bloggers continue to hope...

OBAMA: The Latest Bombshell

Conservative bloggers are buzzing about an audio tape of Obama speaking with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board on Jan. 17, 2008. In the audio tape, Obama "reiterated his call for a cap and trade system on carbon and greenhouse gases" and made the following comments:

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of threatening to "bankrupt" the coal industry with his cap-and-grade proposals:

• Townhall's Amanda Carpenter: "Barack Obama has tried to pretend that he's a friend to clean coal, but now this San Francisco Chronicle interview resurfaces courtesy of our friends at Newsbusters. Go ahead, build new coal plants he says. He'll just bankrupt them later through the tax code."
• Michelle Malkin: "Bankrupty: The change Obama thinks the coal industry deserves..."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "Coal States: Vote [John] McCain, or against your economic interests. Your call."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "The coal-based economics of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and other states will be the first to feel this new policy. Let's hope the voters there pay attention."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "How have the media overlooked this enlightening exposition of Obama's policy from earlier this year?"

On the left side of the blogosphere, Daily Kos' Jed L thinks this is a non-story: "Here's the facts that the McCain-Drudge-FOX axis of weasel does not want you to know: The Chronicle had not concealed the recording, which had been on the newspaper's website all along. And rather than reveal some sinister scheme, what it actually demonstrated was that Barack Obama supported clean coal technology -- a position he shares with none other than John McCain."

OBAMA II: He's Related To An Illegal!

Several conservative bloggers were outraged to learn that Obama's aunt is living in the U.S. illegally:

• Carpenter: "There's so much that's personally and politically offensive in this story I don't know where to start. First, the millionaire Obama leaves his aunt to live in the projects. Obama became rich through his best-selling books based on his own life story. Seems like he could have at least helped the aunt who helped make that story better to tell. So much for spreading the wealth. Second, he takes her money even though she's an illegal alien. That is against the law. His campaign can't even screen out illegal money from his FAMILY MEMBERS. This underscores what a huge problem his campaign has had in the campaign finance department. Last, I thought deportation was supposed to be inhuman and undoable. Wasn't that Obama's whole rationale for amnesty? He'll stick up for millions of other illegal aliens but not lift a finger to sponsor his own auntie to stay?? Cold."
• NRO's Victor Davis Hanson: "How many laws can one break? [...] How ethical is it for someone who is in violation of immigration law, and receiving some sort of public subsidy, to then donate money, illegally again, to a campaign? Message: defy immigration law; ignore a deporation order; obtain, again illegally, public assistance; donate illegally to a presidential campagin; and then count on the press attacking those who worry about such serial flouting of the law."
• Malkin: "Turns out Aunti Zeituni Onyango, one of Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama's many relatives made famous in his memoir, is an illegal alien. And not just a run-of-the-mill illegal alien on welfare. She's one of the hundreds of thousands of deportation fugitives -- absconders -- whom I've been reporting on for the past six years. [...] Lucky for Aunti, anyone who thinks she should face the music and get the boot is considered a 'hater' and a 'xenophobe' and a RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST. Lucky for Aunti, she can always take up shelter in a sanctuary-offering, rule-of-law defying church."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "When first I heard about the Undocumented Auntie, I thought I'd finally figured out how this spread-the-wealth thing works: The government taxes Joe the Plumber to fund public housing agencies that illegally provide welfare and accommodation to illegal immigrants thereby freeing up their cash flow to enable them to make illegal campaign contributions to any nephew who might chance to be running for president and get him elected so he can tax Joe the Plumber even more to fund even more public housing for even more illegal immigrants to make even more illegal campaign contributions... Etc."

PALIN: Her High School Civics Teacher Should Be Fired

Liberal bloggers are accusing Sarah Palin of being ignorant of the First Amendment after she said that "her First Amendment rights may be threatened by 'attacks' from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama":

"Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

'If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,' Palin told host Chris Plante, 'then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.'"

• Salon's Glenn Greenwald: "Somehow, in Sarah Palin's brain, it's a threat to the First Amendment when newspapers criticize her negative attacks on Barack Obama. This is actually so dumb that it hurts. [...] Is it even possible to imagine more breathtaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?"
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "[Palin's] understanding of the First Amendment, not as freedom of speech, but as freedom of speech limited to me and those who share my political views, coupled with a freedom from criticism of those views, is the most frightening interpretation of the Constitution I've ever heard in my life. Those 'attacks' from the MSM are protected under the Constitution, Palin's 'right' to be 'free' from such 'attacks' (read: critical coverage) is most definitely not."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "[This is] yet another example of a woman saying stuff that would be considered disqualifying in a state senate race. [...] Needless to say, there is no first amendment right to be immune from criticism."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "[Palin] honestly seems to think that the role of the press is to serve as stenographers for those in power, cheerleaders for the government at large, and that when they refuse to do so, they are somehow acting not in accordance with her twisted understanding of the Constitution. We need to get this nutjob back to Alaska where she is their problem."
• Mark Kleiman: "I'm glad we have a hockey mom to teach us civics. Not only didn't I know that the Vice President runs the Senate, I didn't even know that the First Amendment is there to protect officials from criticism by reporters."
• Brian Beutler: "Sarah Palin has a third grader's understanding of Constitutional rights."

HORSERACE: Keep Hope Alive, Conservatives!

More than a few conservative bloggers see positive signs for McCain:

• Morrissey: "I think John McCain will win a squeaker over Barack Obama, 273-265, by holding Florida, Nevada, and adding Pennsylvania as a trade for Virginia. [...] GOTV will make a difference, but so will those undecideds -- and as I've said before, if that many people still haven't made up their mind to vote Obama, then I expect most of them to take the safe fall-back position of McCain."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "There's a massive last-minute shift in the electorate. Massive. What's not clear is whether it is all in one direction or not. If it is all or mostly in one direction, it is in McCain's direction. But it could be a shift in two directions: One, a bandwagon effect, leading some semi-McCain leaners to go to Obama; versus two, a 'safety' effect, leading a whole bunch of undecideds and some semi-Obama leaners to move to McCain as the better known quantity in uncertain times. But what's clear to me is that there is an incredible amount of movement. And as all the 'bad' news in the past few days has been bad for Obama -- bankrupting the coal industry, an illegal-immigrant aunt who isn't being cared for, more information about Khalidi and vote fraud -- I tend to think that even if there are countervailing movements in general, the movement in McCain's direction will be stronger."
• Dan Riehl: "It seems fairly apparent that Obama has opted to play prevent defense with just two days to go before the election. That's a dangerous play under any circumstances. Doing it when the news cycle last hours, not days, could prove to be even more disastrous. At least two Jeremiah Wright ads are running in key states. Everyone, including CBS, is talking about Obama bankrupting the coal industry to a nation that, based upon undecideds and Obama's inability to really break away from below 50%, has yet to become comfortable with him as President. [...] While it would be foolish to discount whatever lead Obama might actually have, he proved to be a poor closer in the primaries. His performance in the General may be mirroring that."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "McCain is right to be optimistic about Tuesday. On every count except image and speechifying, McCain is the far better choice for president. McCain is counting on the collective common sense of the American electorate. Obama's hundreds of millions of dollars cannot obscure the fact that he's spent less than four years achieving nothing in a do-nothing Senate, has never run so much as a shift at a fast food place (except for the Annenberg Challenge which he ran with Bill Ayers) and has a long commitment to the very ideas that have driven Europe into its deep hole. MSM has failed to sell the 'its over' message, because some of the 'polls' stayed close enough long enough for voters to care about the race in its closing hours and thus to continue the focus on Obama."
• RedState's Dan Perrin: "The media could be the real mid-wife of the November 4th victory by Senator McCain and Governor Palin. [...] Legions of off-air producers and researchers slavishly work for their message of every day: Obama must be elected. [...] But Americans are not sheep. They are not like Europeans who collectively behave in a manner in which the elite-made machine dictates. Americans do not allow impassable class structures to form. This is one manifestation of why Americans resist, mightily, being told what to do. [...] And thus, believing their own propaganda, will the media machine of 2008 help elect the object of their contempt and disrespect; which is funny, and human, and exactly the opposite of what the machine wants."

HORSERACE II: It's Not Looking Good, Guys...

Other conservative bloggers are more pessimistic about McCain's chances:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "It's not difficult to imagine undecided voters breaking for McCain. But as weighed down as he has become by dissatisfaction with the administration and anger over the economy, I find it difficult to see them breaking for McCain decisively enough to derail Obama."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "While it's possible that late-deciding voters may swing toward McCain, and that for other reasons, too, McCain might outperform the polls, I don't see any strong reason to expect that to happen."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[My prediction is] Obama 318, Maverick 220, with The One pulling 51 percent nationwide to McCain's 47. I gave McCain Ohio partly because he and Palin have spent so much time there but mainly because I don't have the stomach to sketch out a truly gruesome landslide, my reputation for Eeyore-ism notwithstanding."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Although I reserve the right to alter my predictions until the first polls close tomorrow at 7 p.m., right now I predict that Barack Obama will be elected our next president, by an electoral count of 338-200. [...] I'd put Obama's potential range at a minimum of 291 electoral votes and a maximum of 375 electoral votes. I haven't been convinced by those arguing that McCain has a ligitimate shot at Pennsylvania (sorry, Quin), and I don't think Obama will win Georgia."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Frankly, as I've said for a while now, it is still [Obama's] to lose. That does not mean he will win, but the odds are in his favor."

HORSERACE III: Cruising Home To Victory

Liberal bloggers are feeling pretty good about Obama's chances:

• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "I think it comes down to 5 states that are going to be the closest and decide the election: OH, PA, VA, NC, & FL. McCain would need to win all five, while Obama is at 257 EV's and just needs to win in one of those 5 states. MD currently shows Obama taking PA & VA, while McCain takes OH & NC. FL goes both ways. Even giving it to McCain, still a 291-247 two-state win by Obama. Good enough for me."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Victory certainly seems to be almost assured. My best bet is that Obama's final electoral total will be either 338 or 353, depending on whether he wins North Carolina or not. I think that Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota will just barely slip toward McCain, with Arizona, Georgia and Montana going for McCain by somewhat wider margins."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "McCain's clock has simply run out. While there is arguable evidence of a small tightening, there is no evidence of a dramatic tightening of the sort he would need to make Tuesday night interesting. [...] Even if John McCain were to win 70 perecnt of the remaining undecideds (which I don't think is likely), that would only be worth a net of about a point for him. Frankly, McCain's winning scenarios mainly involve the polls having been wrong in the first place -- because of a Bradley Effect or something else. It is unlikely that the polls will 'tighten' substantially further -- especially when Obama already has over 50 percent of the vote."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Missing Karl Rove

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat unloads on the McCain campaign:

"...Allowing that this was a hard time for a Republican to run for President, and allowing that Barack Obama might well have won the White House no matter what McCain did, it's still the case that this has been a lousy, lousy conservative campaign for the Presidency. [...] There were moments when the frantic tactical improvisation worked out well (the 'celebrity ad,' for instance), and McCain's convention speech was well-crafted and well-aimed, and the Palin pick was the right kind of gamble, I think, even if it was taken without adequate preparation and/or consideration of what they might be getting themselves into. But in the aggregate ... well, I always thought that Karl Rove's political genius was overrated, and that huge political opportunities (to say nothing of policy opportunities) were left on the table during the campaigns of the Bush years. And obviously Rove, Ken Mehlman and company were running campaigns in considerably more favorable political environments. But watching the McCain-Palin ticket stagger through the closing months of this campaign, pinning their hopes on a working-class backlash against the progressive income tax in a state that no Republican has carried in twenty years, has given me a newfound appreciation for Rove's abilities: He might not have found a way to win in 2008, but I don't think his efforts would have been quite so embarrassing to watch."

LEST WE FORGET: Obama's Record-Breaking Fundraising Effort Bankrupting NPR, World Wildlife Fund, ACLU

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- After taking in more than $150 million in September, Sen. Barack Obama's historic fundraising drive has continued to completely devastate the causes of public radio, the environment, and civil liberty defense, sources reported Tuesday. 'We've been offering twice as many tote bags, wall calendars, and handsome mugs, but no matter what we do, Obama keeps raking it in,' said Azalea Kim, spokeswoman for the World Wildlife Fund. 'We had a whole campaign ready to end poaching in the Bering Sea and runoff in the Coral Triangle. That's all gone now.' Kim went on to say that she's delighted that the Democratic candidate has garnered the support of so many Americans, but seriously now, enough is enough."