Senate Republicans are About to Challenge the Wrong Cabinet Nomination

I'm going to put on my objective policy analyst hat for this post, thereby pretending that Senate Republicans have the slightest interest in advancing the public interest rather than a nakedly partisan and ideological agenda. In this vein, I'd like to examine the announcement by Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Arlen Specter (R-PA) and others that plans are being made to oppose the confirmation of Attorney General-designate Eric Holder.

There is little doubt that Mr. Holder has the experience to handle the job of reforming the broken Justice Department. Out of law school, Holder served for twelve years in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. Later, as the US Attorney for DC he led the prosecution of Democratic Congressman Dan Rostenkowski on corruption charges. He was also the Deputy AG under Janet Reno for most of President Clinton's second term. On a more interesting note, he recently represented the NFL in private practice during its efforts to punish Michael Vick for leading a dogfighting ring.

The point of all this is, it seems like Holder's approach to the law is from the perspective of a prosecutor and jurist rather than that of a criminal defense lawyer or politician. His record would portend respect for the rule of law at a time when we desperately need an Attorney General devoted to restoring the integrity of the Justice Department.

So why would Republicans oppose him? Again, I am approaching this question from an objective policy analyst perspective, thus putting aside any cynical tendencies to say Republicans are deathly afraid that Holder will lead an effort to investigate the legality of certain actions (especially torture) ordered by the outgoing Bush Administration and defended by its congressional allies. So with that explanation ruled out, they must see him as lacking the integrity or demeanor to restore the reputation of the Justice Department. That would explain why Senator Specter and friends are concerned about Holder's alleged involvement in the Marc Rich pardon. But as the Washington Post article linked above says:

...more moderate Republicans say that the pardon issue alone will not be enough to jeopardize Holder's confirmation.

Indeed. Sure it looks slimy, but is that enough to try and block the guy? So what else are Holder's detractors concerned about? And seriously, after getting strongly behind the embarrassments Alberto (Abu Ghraib) Gonzales and Michael Mukasey (not to mention Justices Roberts and Alito) and claiming Democrats should give President Bush the benefit of the doubt on appointments because elections have consequences?! This just seems a little hypocritical and shortsighted to me.

Instead, Senate Republicans would be better served to look at the qualifications of the nominee for Treasury, Timothy Geithner. Mr. Geithner has been President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank for the past five years, and in that role has had an enormously important role in overseeing the regulation (or lack thereof) of Wall Street and more recently helping manage the $700 billion bailout. He is a protege of leading Clinton economists Larry Summers and Robert Rubin, two fervent Wall Street supporters and advocates of financial deregulation. In light of recent financial market crisis and the unpopular bailout package, perhaps it is worth asking a few questions about Geithner's handling of the $700 billion and how he would have done things differently from Secretary Paulson and the Bush Administration. While they're at it, it would be useful to find out if he has any ideas why our financial markets have crashed so dramatically and what he thinks can be done to prevent this mess from happening again in the future.

Not to say Geithner is necessarily going to continue the trend towards financial market deregulation and allow the kind of extraordinary speculative bubbles we have seen in recent years to persist. But the public deserves to know exactly how he feels about these issues of enormous import. And Senate Republicans as the loyal opposition are in a natural position to launch such an inquiry.

Blagojevich Blagojevich Blagojevich

Remember that scene from Being John Malkovich, where John Malkovich goes into his own portal and everyone looks like him, and all they say is "Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich"? I can't help but think that's not all that different from recently-arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's regular experience of the world.

Everyone in Illinois already knew that Blago is mind-numbingly corrupt. It's frankly a miracle he was re-elected in 2006, more of a testament to weakness in the IL GOP that his strengths as a politician. His approval rating then was around the low 40s; before he was arrested yesterday it was hovering in the 10-15% range. So it came as a surprise to precisely nobody that Blago had been under investigation by the feds for years now and knew about it, but just seemed to not care and went about his daily routine of being a huge jackass. Earlier this year, the state legislature was talking about impeaching him because on top of everything else he's done, he started doing the Bush signing statement thing and was basically either ignoring the substance of bills or inserting his own major legislation in an "amendatory veto". Like I said, he's a huge jackass.

Anyway, back to my original point. In the process of tracking down state budget cut documentation for work, I often have to visit state websites. I've noticed for some time that virtually every official state press release coming out of Illinois has "Governor Blagojevich" in the title. In light of recent events, I thought it'd be amusing to share a chronological listing of state releases. Mind you, this is not a pick and choose sample, but literally every article during a three-week period in November. And these are not Governor's releases, they are official Illinois news releases.

November 25, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Urges Illinoisans to Volunteer Time and Talents during the Holiday Season

November 25, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Approves Illinois Tollway Congestion Relief Green Lanes Plan

November 24, 2008
Governor and First Lady Blagojevich Launch Keep Our Kids Warm and Safe Campaign to Provide Winter Items for Needy Children

November 24, 2008
Governor Blagojevich’s Mortgage Fraud Task Force Moves to Protect Tenants from Eviction

November 23, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Reminds Illinoisans that Services are Still Available after Successful Workforce Outreach Days

November 23, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Urges Skilled Trades Workers to Apply for Illinois’ Home Weatherization Assistance Program

November 21, 2008
Blagojevich Administration Announces State of Illinois’ November “Veteran of the Month”

November 20, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Commends Illinois Tollway for Adopting $1.8 Billion Tomorrow’s Transportation Today

November 20, 2008
Statement from Governor Rod R. Blagojevich

November 20, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Restores Funding for Substance Abuse Addiction Treatment and other Critical Services

November 19, 2008
Governor Blagojevich to Sign International Declaration to Fight Climate Change

November 18, 2008
Governor Blagojevich to Sign International Agreement to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Deforestation

November 18, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Local Governments in Nine Counties Approved for Federal Assistance for September Flooding

November 18, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Plan to Manage Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Deficit

November 17, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Launches Partnership with CareerBuilder.com to Further Assist Illinois Workers

November 17, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Launches Workforce Outreach Days to Connect Illinoisans with Services during Poor Economy

November 17, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Click It or Ticket Enforcement Campaign this Thanksgiving Holiday

November 15, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Encourages Illinois Seniors to Apply for Illinois Cares Rx

November 14, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Proclaims World Diabetes Day in Illinois and Calls for a Stronger Focus on the Growing Diabetes Epidemic among Children

November 14, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Schedule for Illinois Poverty Summit

November 13, 2008
Governor Blagojevich urges people to prepare for dangerous cold temperatures during Winter Storm Preparedness Week

November 13, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Peoria County Approved for Federal Assistance Following September Flooding

November 13, 2008
Governor Blagojevich announces Landmark Lawsuit Settlement Empowering more People with Developmental Disabilities

November 12, 2008
Governor Blagojevich announces John Filan as the New Executive Director of the Illinois Finance Authority

November 12, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Plans for State-of-the-Art Biofuels Production Facility in Northern Illinois

November 10, 2008
Governor Blagojevich to Co-host Governor Schwarzenegger’s Historic Global Climate Summit

November 10, 2008
Blagojevich Administration Offers Financial Assistance to Nurses Working in Veterans’ Homes

November 9, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Announces Nearly $200,000 in Research Grants to Study Alzheimer’s Disease

November 6, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Encourages Those Wanting to Find Birth Parents or Children to Sign Up for the Illinois Adoption Registry during Adoption Awareness Month

November 5, 2008
Governor Blagojevich Congratulates President-elect Obama and Discusses U.S. Senate Seat

November 3, 2008
Governor Blagojevich and Council of Economic Advisors Review Impact of National Slowdown on Illinois

A friendly reminder to the Pentagon...

War is hell.

Some 15,000 soldiers are heading home to this sprawling base after spending more than a year at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and military health officials are bracing for a surge in brain injuries and psychological problems among those troops.

Facing prospects that one in five of the 101st Airborne Division soldiers will suffer from stress-related disorders, the base has nearly doubled its psychological health staff. Army leaders are hoping to use the base's experiences to assess the long-term impact of repeated deployments.

"I don't know what to expect. I don't think anybody knows," said Gen. Peter Chiarelli, vice chief of staff of the Army, as he flew back to Washington from a recent tour of the base's medical facilities. "That's why I want to see numbers from the 101st's third deployment."

Why is this happening?

Noting that some soldiers in the 101st Airborne units have been to war four or five times, Chiarelli said he is most worried the military will not be able to find enough health care providers to deal effectively with the troops needing assistance.

Many of the military bases are near small or remote communities that do not have access to the number of health professionals who might be needed as a great many soldiers return home.

More than 63,600 active duty Army soldiers have done three or more tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is a nearly 12 percent of the total number of soldiers who have deployed at least once. Roughly four in 10 soldiers who have gone to war have served more than one deployment — and that number is growing steadily

Finally, Army leaders are starting to get their heads out of the sand and deal with the horrible psychological and emotional trauma experienced by multiple-tour Iraq vets.

For the first time, Thomas said, every soldier returning home will have an individual meeting with a behavioral health specialist and then go through a second such session 90 days to 120 days later.

The second one is generally the time when indications of stress surface, after the initial euphoria of the homecoming wears off and sleeplessness, nightmares, and other symptoms show up.

"We're seeing a lot of soldiers with stress related issues," he said. "They're not bipolar or schizophrenic. But they're deploying three and four times and the stress is tremendous. They're having relationship issues, financial issues, marital problems — all stress related."

More than 3,000 of the 15,000 troops returning home, Logan estimated, probably will experience headaches, sleep disorders, irritability, memory loss, relationship strains or other symptoms linked to stress disorder.

And as if that wasn't bad enough:

Medical staff at Fort Campbell say they also worry that there will be a new surge of suicides — an escalating problem in recent years, largely related to the stresses of war.

While soldiers have been routinely deploying for 15-month tours, most Marines serve about seven months and airmen deploy for about four months, although some may serve for tours of six months or longer.

Late this past summer, Pentagon leaders ordered a change, saying any soldier who deployed in August or after would serve 12-month tours. Army leaders say they want to reduce that to nine months, but doing so will be difficult considering the strains of fighting two wars at once.

Logan said that some 85 percent of those soldiers with stress disorder symptoms will recover with the help of some treatment or medication. But the other 15 percent will require more intensive help.

Remember back in the runup to the war, when the neocon cheerleaders, toady TV pundits, Pentagon shills and the 101st Division of Fighting Keyboardists were smugly claiming an invasion of Iraq would pay for itself?

In addition to the myriad other reasons that claim was entirely ridiculous on its face, I'd be willing to bet a nickel that not a single one of these warmongers accounted for the potential PTSD-related mental health care as a potential cost.

Lest we take our eye off of Iraq with so much else going on, I feel it is necessary to ask the Pentagon to please take care of our troops, and not force them into repeated deployment until the point of mental breakdown. If we can't find new men and women willing to fight, it's time to end this war.

Fixing Health Care: Expanding Coverage or Controlling Costs?

I must admit I'm not an expert of any sort in the health care field. But I saw a very interesting panel discussion on Thursday at a work conference, about the challenges and expected priorities of the early Obama Administration, and one panelist named Chris Jennings talked in depth about what meaningful health care reform would look like. Apparently Mr. Jennings has been at the center of the national health care debate for a couple decades now and was a prime architect of the 1993 Clinton plan, so it can be assumed he is well attuned to the political realities of the situation and the potential pitfalls to avoid. His thoughts piqued my interest, so I figured I would share them here.

Here's the crux of his argument:

Health care reform is crucial to rebuilding the economy; without it America is operating at a major disadvantage in the global economy. The guaranteed free health care other countries provide is money employers in those countries don't have to pay for their workers.

The health care crisis has two major components: the massive amounts of uninsured and underinsured individuals unable to get quality care, and the pervasive skyrocketing costs.

Liberals usually focus exclusively on providing universal care while conservatives focus primarily on driving down costs. But it is nearly impossible to fix one problem without making significant headway on the other.

In other words, if we expand coverage to everyone without some mechanism to rein in the exploding cost of adequate care, American health care will face overwhelming financial strain and the system will implode before too long. Likewise, lowering overall costs through "market reforms" while millions of people remain uninsured will result in a massive reverse adverse selection problem - those that really do need quality coverage will be those least able to get it. This structure is also unsustainable in the medium-long run.

Makes sense intuitively. I've always figured an intrinsic advantage of government-provided health care is a much lower overhead cost. Insurance companies now spend something like 30% of their budgets on administrative and marketing costs, around half of that with bureaucratic mazes designed to keep people from getting care the company doesn't want to pay for and the other half telling you to ask your doctor rather suggestively about the LATEST COOL NEW DRUG!!!. Meanwhile, the overhead of Medicare is something like 3%. Between that and the promising potential of negotiating with Big Pharma for lower drug prices, It seems pretty obvious to me which is more economically efficient. Why would we not want a single-payer system based on that?

So.....does anyone who knows more than myself about health care policy want to react to this?

I'm now posting on GW's Policy Hippo blog

http://policyhippo.blogspot.com/

This is the blog started by editors of the GW public policy school journal, Policy Perspectives, of which I now am one. I'll actually be posting there pretty regularly (I mean it this time!) so please check it out and comment freely.

If you pick up RSS feeds, you can subscribe to Policy Hippo here.

I'll still be posting as optimo.

President Obama's Inheritance

No doubt, it feels good to be a progressive these days. Democrats have more control of the federal government than any time since just after the 1964 landslide elections. That was immediately followed by the enactment of Medicare and other key social safety net programs, so it is no surprise that many left-leaning advocates and engaged citizens are expecting big things from the upcoming Obama Administration.

Call me a downer if you want, but I'm not quite so thrilled about the prospects for immediate major advances. I'm certainly feeling an awful lot better walking by the White House these days, but that said, we are about to witness our nation's first black president attempt to maneuver an agenda through perhaps the most dire state of affairs this nation has seen since at least the Great Depression era. The global climate crisis, daunting economic inequality, the Iraq debacle and the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, unsustainable energy consumption, a health care system in absolute shambles. Oh yeah, and there's that whole financial/economic meltdown thing. And that doesn't even bother with a whole host of other important issues that aren't quite as imminently crucial.

We know one thing: governing with be anything but a cakewalk, even with significant Democratic majorities in congress. The constraints on enacting common-sense progressive legislation extend way beyond the impressive ability of Republicans to obstruct. We are plagued by a wide variety of obstacles of all shapes and sizes: a trillion-dollar structural budget deficit ("structural" means it won't go away on its own when the economy gets better), factionalism within the Democratic caucus, loss of credibility around the world, and a continued public aversion to large tax increases. And it's not like most people are aware of these formidable constraints; after all, didn't you hear about Lindsay Lohan's latest drunken escapade?

Really, I'm not trying to be a downer. I just think it's of the utmost importance that highly educated folks like us are realistic in our expectations for the President-elect's job performance. It will take a heroic effort on Mr. Obama's part to:

1. get the economy back on track and create quality jobs,
   
2. shepherd a meaningful climate change initiative through Congress,
   
3. shepherd meaningful health care reform, hopefully providing universal coverage, through Congress,
   
4. get us out of Iraq and restore our standing in the world,
   
5. squash the danger posed by Islamic terrorists and al-Qaeda,
   
6. and get the budget under control.

I'm not sure any president has ever accomplished this much in one term. From everything I've heard in people's expectations, both implicitly and explicitly, Obama will need to accomplish most or maybe even all of these things to be considered a successful president and be re-elected in 2012.

Good luck, Mr. President-elect. You'll need it.

The price of GM's continued existence

I was about to write a spirited rant about the blatant folly of bailing out disgustingly retrograde American car companies, but Lisa beat me to the punch. If you really want to know my thoughts on this, you can find them in a comment on Lisa's post.

But I do want to add one key point. If GM continues to exist and generally suck at making cars, it limits the abilities of more innovative startup companies to grow and gain market share. Companies making cars like the Aptera.


This beauty is actually ready for production, but auto industry regulations essentially written by GM lobbyists are making the producers jump through hoops just to get it on the road. Why does our government hate the car of the future?

Optimo's Official Election Recap

There will be much time to talk about 2009 and the coming Obama presidency, but it feels right to start off with a recap of the election.

Obviously we know Obama won, and decisively so. He definitely has amassed 364 EVs and still could end up with 376 (Missouri and the single Omaha district remain too close to call). He outperformed John Kerry in just about every demographic group you can imagine. Check out the details, they're pretty striking. Obama won the 18-29 age group by an astounding 2-to-1 margin. Regionally, major gains were made in the coastal South, upper Midwest, Northeast and non-Mormon areas of the Mountain West. It's hard to see these gains fading away anytime soon if Democrats manage to deliver on at least some of their promises over the next few years.

In Congress, Republicans actually did a little better than expected. Although a few races in both chambers are still yet to be decided, they lost ground but managed to avoid a major landslide. As of now, the count stands at 22 seats flipping from R to D, 4 '06 D pickups flipping back to R, and eight still yet to be decided. If the eight remaining seats split 4-4, the final count will be 258-177.

The Senate saw at least six Democratic pickups in a very tough year for Republicans, while 3 races involving R incumbents remain too close to call. AK is waiting for all mail-in ballots to be counted, MN will go to a recount, and GA will go to a runoff election. If the D challenger wins in all three (which is very unlikely), then Democrats reach that supposedly magical 60 mark. Georgia would really be a shocker, and both sides will be throwing a ton of resources into the special December 2nd runoff election. My best guess for the final tally is 57-43: Franken wins in Minnesota and Lieberman bolts to the GOP. Again, both houses see non-negligible Dem majorities, but not large enough for the center-left governing coalition within the party to easily get legislation through.

The state level elections produced few surprises and was much more even. Democrats picked up the Missouri governorship which will impact policy there, but all other governor races stayed the same. Democrats picked up 5 state legislative chambers, including the NY Senate (as expected) for the first time in over a century, and Republicans surprisingly picked up both chambers in Tennessee along with 2 other bodies. New Hampshire now has the first majority-female legislative body in the country's history. Ballot initiatives were a very mixed bag. I won't bother with the details, but some nonpartisan review can be found here.

Election predictions

Here is what I expect for tomorrow's election:

Obama wins 53-45 with 1-2% voting for someone else.
He will amass 359 EV's, by winning all the Kerry states and picking up Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia.

Three other potential Obama states - Georgia, Indiana and Missouri - will be slight losses due to voting "irregularities". Each of these state governments is dominated by Republicans, and the urban minority areas will be plagued by massive lines, voter intimidation and potential other funny business.

In the Senate, Democrats will pick up eight seats tomorrow: Virginia (Warner), New Mexico (T. Udall), Colorado (M. Udall), Alaska (Begich), New Hampshire (Shaheen), Oregon (Merkley), North Carolina (Hagan), Minnesota (Franken). Georgia's race will go to an early December runoff, and odious incumbent Saxby Chambliss will prevail in a nailbiter. Lieberman will lose his committee chairmanship but will reluctantly decide to remain in the Dem caucus. Thus, Democrats will end up with 59 members, but still be able to break some GOP filibusters by flipping moderates like Snowe, Specter and, yes, the re-re-reinvented McMaverick.

The House is more nebulous (too many damn races to follow), but I expect around 30-35 D pickups and 2-4 R pickups.

Dems pick up the Missouri governorship, and all others remain in current hands. Dems pick up the NY State Senate and prepare to eradicate the state of all Republican congresscritters after the 2010 census.

California's Proposition 8 (gay marriage ban) fails. South Dakota's abortion ban, designed specifically for a Roe v. Wade challenge fails. Affirmative action banning and anti-worker initiatives all fail. Massachusetts' measure eliminating the income tax fails, but marijuana decriminalization passes.

Can you say landslide?

Make your own predictions here.

$1,000,000,000,000,000

That number, folks, is a quadrillion. A million billion. Bet you've never seen it before. I've only seen it in measuring distances in astronomy; the nearest star to the sun is about a quadrillion meters away from here. It seems like such an unfathomably large number that I wouldn't expect to ever encounter it associated with something here on Earth, something directly related to the human experience. But I saw it today.

You'll notice the number in the title has a dollars sign in front of it. That number represents the approximate amount of financial value tied up the derivatives market as recently reported by the Bank for International Settlements. Over fifteen times the entire world's GDP ($60 trillion). In other words, way more money is invested in these derivatives, which are best described in layman's terms as bets on bets, than actually exists.

Confused? Good. You're starting to get why we're in such a mess. See, the fact that these volatile markets hold a quadrillion dollars of value is not a dangerous thing in itself. The problem lies in the harsh reality that nobody has any f***ing clue what these things are worth. That's why everyone's so scared.

This can happen because there are no intrinsic checks and balances (aka regulations) on the derivatives market the way there are with banks. Institutional investors and speculators can leverage their real assets without limit, essentially creating vast amounts of financial wealth out of thin air. But because that wealth isn't backed up by any material assets, its value is both limitless and extremely unstable.

To better put this phenomenon into perspective, take a look at this chart:

More to come....

October 2008 Senate Roundup

And down the stretch they come! The landscape hasn't changed drastically since the last update in June, although a few races have moved a category or two. If you can believe it, the situation has gotten even better for the Dem-held seats, as it looks like they will all be retained. Meanwhile, the hierarchy of GOP races has stayed much the same in terms of competitiveness, although three (Alaska, Georgia and North Carolina) have jumped two categories while three others (Idaho, Kansas and Maine) have fallen two categories. Dems are now poised to grab at least seven seats, and the ceiling at this point seems to be somewhere in the 10-12 range.

This will be my last full set of rankings, although I will post an update on competitive races during the week before election day.

Here's the key, same as usual:
1: 0-5% chance Dems will win seat
2: 5-15%
3: 15-25%
4: 25-40%
5: 40-50%
6: 50-60%
7: 60-75%
8: 75-85%
9: 85-95%
10: 95-100%

To the rankings!

Summary (pickups in italics)
10: AR, DE, IL, IA, MA, MI, MT, RI, SD, VA, WV
9: NJ
8: LA, NM
7: AK, CO, NH
6: NC, OR
5: MN
4: MS-B
3: GA, KY
2: ME, SC, TX
1: AL, ID, KS, MS-A, NE, OK, TN, WY-A, WY-B

Republican-Held Seats (23)

Virginia (OPEN): 10 (Definite D) - upgrade
Democratic Candidate: (Popular) Former Gov. Mark Warner
Republican Candidate: (Less Popular) Former Gov. Jim Gilmore
This race has been a foregone conclusion for some time. Organizing in northern Virginia, I have seen a whole bunch of Obama/Warner posters and yard signs. It's one of those rare instances where up-ballot coattails could help carry this all-important swing state for Barack. Another note: for some reason this has been one of the most often-polled Senate races. Pollsters should save their $$ - no poll has shown Gilmore within 20 points. The only question remaining is what committees Warner will get onto in the 111th Congress.

New Mexico (OPEN): 8 (Favored D)
Democratic Candidate: Rep. Tom Udall
Republican Candidate: Rep. Steve Pearce
A contest between two sitting Congressmen, this contest was bound to tighten a bit as election day drew nearer and voters started paying more attention. Nevertheless, Udall remains projected to win by a low-double digit margin (something like 56-44). The NRSC has written off New Mexico, seeing this seat as a lost cause. Really not much else to say...I think Udall will be a fantastic Senator.

Colorado (OPEN): 7 (Leans D) - slight downgrade
Democratic Candidate: Rep. Mark Udall
Republican Candidate: Former Rep. Bob Schaffer
Colorado is a top-tier presidential swing state this year, and its senate race has been no different; it has garned much attention from the DSCC and NRSC and has stayed consistently in single digits. Udall remains a clear favorite, but he has failed to pull away from the batnuts crazy Schaffer, whose views are even considered extreme as compared to the current group of shit-flinging howler monkeys (h/t Trapper John for that wonderfully descriptive term) known as the House Republican Caucus. Schaffer has also been caught up in numerous corruption scandals, the most notable being his ties to the infamous superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. Even though Udall remains up by mere single digits, it will take a dramatic game-changing event for him to lose.

Alaska (Ted Stevens): 7 (Leans D) - major upgrade
Democratic Challenger: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich
This race was looking pretty good even before Stevens was indicted a couple months ago. Now Begich is clearly in the driver's seat. Even though the Alaska titan Stevens, who has been in the Senate almost as long as Alaska has been a state, may be able to beat his corruption charges, his brand is still highly tainted due to all the negative spotlight. And for reference, a perception of impropriety among the Alaska Republican establishment was precisely what swept Sarah Palin into office in 2006. Begich seems to have strong integrity, high name recognition and has some great ideas on energy and transitioning to a green economy. Another guy I would be proud to call a Senator.

New Hampshire (John Sununu): 7 (Leans D)
Democratic Challenger: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen
Although Sununu's September attack ad blitz has tightened the race a bit, he still remains fundamentally unpopular, as he has consistently shilled for the horrendously unpopular Bush administration and continues to do so even now. It's hard to see how he overcomes that albatross with this election climate.

North Carolina (Elizabeth Dole): 6 (Barely D) - major upgrade
Democratic Challenger: State Sen. Kay Hagan
Over the past few weeks, Hagan has pulled into a definitive lead over the frankly incompetent Senator Dole. The DSCC has invested massively on Hagan's behalf, and their hard-hitting ads highlighting Liddy Dole's ties to George Bush, general ineffectiveness and questionable ties to North Carolina (her primary residence is DC's infamous Watergate Hotel) have clearly had an effect. Surely the Republican establishment will hit back on the incumbent's behalf, but it seems like the damage has been done.

Oregon (Gordon Smith): 6 (Barely D) - upgrade
Democratic Challenger: State House Speaker Jeff Merkley
This movement is really exciting to see; Merkley has the potential to be a great progressive Senator. He engineered a Democratic takeover of the Oregon State House in 2006 and proceeded to preside over one of the most successful legislative sessions in recent history. He has fantastic views on energy, transportation, social and economic issues - the whole gamut of domestic affairs. Smith could still win as polls are showing a virtual tie, but he has really disgusted some Oregonians by trying to heavyhandedly run away from his party. It is hard to see how he overcomes that loss of credibility.

Minnesota (Norm Coleman): 5 (Barely R)
Democratic Challenger: Al Franken
Notable Independent Candidate: Dean Barkley
I predicted a really nasty race, and am sorry to say I have not been disappointed. Coleman, the former radical hippie activist, is truly a worm. He catapulted into office on the back of faux GOP outrage over the injection of (gasp) politics into progressive hero Paul Wellstone's funeral following his tragic plane crash (I still suspect foul play). And Franken is the perfect man to pick up the Wellstone mantle, being a proud Democrat and not afraid to stand up for his values in the face of criticism. This election is looking much like a toss-up, and will greatly depend on Obama's ability to establish coattails for Franken. Note that Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley is generating a significant amount of support and may end up getting close to 20% of the vote.

Mississippi-B (Roger Wicker): 4 (Leans R)
Democratic Challenger: Former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove
Somewhat surprisingly, not much has changed overall in the dynamics of this contest. While Musgrove has generally run away from the national Democrats, his chances ironically still reside in the upswell in African-American voters from the Obama campaigns organizing efforts. If I had to guess I would say Wicker pulls it off, but this one is certainly a real Dem pickup opportunity. This would be the seat that gets the Dems to 60 Senators (including Lieberman), so expect ample national party committee expenditures in MS during the camapign's final weeks.

Kentucky (Mitch McConnell): 3 (Favored R)
Democratic Challenger: Rich Businessman Bruce Lunsford
Polls have McConnell ahead somewhere in the single digits, at it will likely remain that way through election day. It would be great to knock off the odious Senate GOP leader McConnell, but at this point a Lunsford victory would merely be the cherry on top of an already sweet election season. McConnell still has a ton of $ in the bank so he should be able to pull out a win.

Georgia (Saxby Chambliss): 3 (Favored R) - major upgrade
Democratic Challenger: Jim Martin
Libertarian Challenger: Allen Buckley
Wow. I really didn't expect this race to tighten, but it has. Obama's investment in Georgia, Chambliss' general arrogance and the deregulation-fueled financial crisis have driven a previously afterthought contest into competitive status. I will need to see a couple more tight polls to be convinced that Martin can win, but man would this be a pleasant surprise. Martin is actually a good, honest guy who would stand with the Dems on most major issues. Expect the DSCC to invest heavily, they really hate Chambliss and if they can siphon enough resources from other places like New Mexico and Maine, GA-Sen has a shot to be the shocker of the 2008 elections.

Texas (John Cornyn): 2 (Probable R) - slight downgrade
Democratic Challenger: State Rep. and Lt. Col. Rick Noriega
Yeah, it's Texas, and while making strides in the right direction, Texas is still unquestionably a red state. But Noriega is running as a proud netroots-style progressive and is gradually closing the gap on the odious chickenhawk Bush-shill Cornyn. While Noriega is badly outgunned financially, the race's margin now hovers in the high single digits. A strong finish by Noriega combined with huge youth and minority turnout could lead to a stunning upset and a great Democratic Senator from Texas. Oh yeah - Cornyn takes the honors for worst campaign ad of the 2008 election cycle.

Maine (Susan Collins): 2 (Probable R) - major downgrade
Democratic Challenger: Rep. Tom Allen
Oh how the mighty have fallen. Originally a top-tier pickup target, Maine's contest now ranks just 13th on the list of pickup opportunities. As much as they have tried, Allen and the DSCC simply have not been able to chip away at Sen. Collins' high approval ratings. I believe such popularity is thoroughly undeserved, but she benefits from the coattails of actually moderate GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe and former liberal Republicans that historically dominated the state. It's hard to see how that changes with just a month until election day. Oh well.

South Carolina (Lindsey Graham): 2 (Probable R) - upgrade
"Democratic" Challenger: Bob Conley
Weird. Two recent polls have Graham leading the DINO (Democrat in Name Only) Conley by just nine points. Perhaps conservatives have been impressed by Conley's hardline stances on immigration and crime prevention - he's actually running to the right of Graham on these issues. Graham will almost definitely win, but it's interesting to note that some of this movement may be due to economic trends and a general "throw the bums out" kind of attitude.

Nebraska (OPEN): 1 (Definite R) - downgrade
Republican Candidate: Former Gov. Mike Johanns
Democratic Candidate: Scott Kleeb
Some lefty activists continue to hold out hope for Kleeb, but I just can't see it. The state is too deeply conservative and Kleeb just doesn't have the name recognition in the eastern part of the state that isn't quite so ruby red.

Idaho (OPEN): 1 (Definite R) - major downgrade
Republican Candidate: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch
Democratic Candidate: Larry LaRocco
I had hopes for this to be the stunning upset of the election cycle but it just never materialized. Idaho remains one of the most strongly Republican states in the country and LaRocco's support seems to be topped out at around 35-38%.

Oklahoma (James Inhofe): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: State Sen. Andrew Rice
Rice is a very intriguing young Democrat; in just his early 30's, he seems to have a very bright future and may indeed find himself in the Senate one day. But 2008 is not that day. While Inhofe is truly insane and Oklahomans should be embarrassed to have him as a Senator, they aren't.

Kansas (Pat Roberts): 1 (Definite R) - major downgrade
Democratic Challenger: Former Rep. Jim Slattery
During the early summer this race was showing glimpses of competitiveness and Slattery had the potential to be a solid candidate, but that did not hold. Roberts wil cruise to re-election.

Tennessee (Lamar Alexander): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: Bob Tuke
Nothing to see here. Tuke seems like a good guy, but hasn't caught any traction.

Alabama (Jeff Sessions): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: State Sen. Vivian Figures

Wyoming-B (John Barrasso): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: Nick Carter

Mississippi-A (Thad Cochran): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: Erik Fleming

Wyoming-A (Michael Enzi): 1 (Definite R)
Democratic Challenger: Professor Chris Rothfuss

Democratic-held Seats (12)

Louisiana (Mary Landrieu): 8 (Favored D) - upgrade
Republican Challenger: State Treasurer John Neely Kennedy
Once seen as a toss-up race, Landrieu has done a great job so far and currently has a solid double-digit lead over the recent Democratic defector Kennedy. I am being cautious and still leaving Kennedy some room to claw his way back, but with so many GOP seats in jeopardy it looks like the NRSC will not have much $ left over to invest in offense.

New Jersey (Frank Lautenberg): 9 (Probable D)
Republican Challenger: Former Rep. Dick Zimmer
Polls here are actually closer than in Louisiana, but New Jersey has been the ultimate GOP tease in recent years. Karl Rove & Co. spent millions in the outrageously expensive state in both 2004 and 2006, and likely lost the Senate because that spending diverted precious resources away from Virginia, Montana and Missouri. Expect a 54-46 type victory for Lautenberg.

South Dakota (Tim Johnson): 10 (Definite D) - upgrade
Republican Challenger: State Rep. Joel Dykstra
There's really not much to say. The GOP really blew this one with a near-total recruitment failure. Johnson will cruise to an easy victory.

Delaware (Joe Biden): 10 (Definite D)
This one is only listed here because there will be an immediate special election to replace Biden when he becomes the Vice President. Note that all following races are in alphabetical order. None of the races from here on need any substantial comment. It is difficult to picture any of these Democratic incumbents winning by less than 15 points.

Arkansas (Mark Pryor): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: NONE (there is a Green Party candidate)
Mind you this is a red state. And the party couldn't find any challenger for a supposedly vulnerable Pryor? Good lord that's pathetic.

Illinois (Dick Durbin): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Steve Sauerberg

Iowa (Tom Harkin): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Christopher Reed

Massachusetts (John Kerry): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Jeff Beatty

Michigan (Carl Levin): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Jack Hoogendyk

Montana (Max Baucus): 10 (Definite D)
"Republican" Challenger: Bob Kelleher
This one is worth noting just because Kelleher is a really funny kook dude. He ran against Baucus last time in the Green Party. And he won a contested GOP primary. That's just sad.

Rhode Island (Jack Reed): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Robert Tingle

West Virginia (Jay Rockefeller): 10 (Definite D)
Republican Challenger: Jay Wolfe
The only swing vote here may be among people named Jay.

Campaigning vs. Governing

So now we have our full tickets: Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin. And they are very revealing about the nature of this election and the dynamics of the partisan landscape these days.
The most important revelation here further clarifies that Obama is running his campaign in a manner that sets him up to govern effectively, while McCain is simply running to win, governance be damned.

Okay, raise your hand if you'd heard of Sarah Palin before she became the VP nominee. Right. The buzz said Palin was a potentially smart pick because it shored up support for McCain among social conservatives and may be able to pick up some disaffected Hillary supporters because she is a woman. Which may be true. But the fact is, how the hell does she in any way pass the "commander-in-chief" test? This is the person who John McCain wants to take over the country should anything happen to him (he is a health risk after all)?! She is just over a year into her term as governor of a state with fewer people than Fort Worth, TX and a fantasyland welfare system driven by massive oil profits. In terms of governing preparedness and helpfulness to a potential McCain Administration, Sarah Palin is an absolute zero.

Whereas with Joe Biden, Obama has added perhaps the foremost foreign policy expert in Washington to his team. It would be very difficult to say this pair is not capable of handling a crisis of foreign affairs (although Rove & Co will try). Biden is also extremely well respected on Capitol Hill and will help build unlikely alliances to shepherd through his boss's agenda. In short, this is a VP selection that will help with electoral politics, but even more so with effective governance.

This episode is further evidence that Barack Obama is not just trying to get into the Oval Office, but clearly wants to be a highly capable leader once there. We have seen that in the way Obama handled the primary debates, not seeking to sow hatred against fellow Democrats at any point even while his rival chose to take a different path. We have seen that in the ways Obama has handled rolling out his policy platform, refraining from ambitious policy proposals that he does not believe he can deliver. When pressed for specifics, he has stuck to the core aspects of his agenda and refused to pander to the base just to win an election. That is not "running away from his base", it's preparing for honest governance. As for those that say he is not providing specifics, I believe they are either partisan agents aiming to deliberately misinform low-information voters, or being played by those smear merchants.

John McCain, on the other hand, seems not to care all that much about governing; he is attempting to be all things to all people. I can't think of an issue (except arguably Iraq) where he has maintained the same position he held in 2000, when he ran as an actual "maverick". Abortion, tax cuts, immigration, torture, campaign finance....the list goes on and on. Furthermore, he has betrayed over the course of the campaign a fundamental lack of understanding of the key issues facing the nation today. He gets Sunnis and Shiites confused, or confuses them on purpose to make a warmongering talking point possible. He still says "everybody knows" that tax cuts raise revenues. He calls a salary of anything under $5 million "middle class". He has consistently opposed funding health care and body armor for the troops he continues to send into harm's way, supposedly claiming it abandons principles of fiscal responsibility while billions of taxpayer dollars go "missing" in Iraq and not a peep is uttered. He calls his wife a cunt and offers her services for a strip show but thinks feminist women will support him because Barack Obama is....smug? Worst of all, while jumping aboard the mantle of reform, he continues to staff his campaign heavily with corporate lobbying interests and disciples of the vermin that populated the vaunted Bush PR machine.

Talking points aside, it seems McCain really is running to continue the legacy of George W. Bush and the legacy of fundamentalist Republicanism, much to America's detriment. More politics over policy. That, above all, is why we cannot allow him the opportunity to pretend to govern.

Reining In the New Spoils System: A Proposal Part I: Defining the Problem

I'm gonna introduce this topic with a favored boogeyman of the left - Halliburton. We all know the story: This all-purpose giant contracting conglomerate, formerly headed by Darth Cheney himself, is awarded massive no-bid contracts by the Bush misAdministration to perform various tasks traditionally performed by the federal government. Notoriously, billions of dollars go missing during the early days of the Iraq War, Halliburton subsidiary KBR is ostensibly deemed the culprit escapes any measure of accountability, and campaign contributions to Republicans rise substantially among the war profiteering sector.

Halliburton has become so notorious due to its sheer brazenness engaging in naked cronyism. They are an effective poster child for the rapidly expanding phenomenon of privatized government services. The GOP and other supporters claim it is more effective because private entities can perform services cheaper, thus saving taxpayers money. This theory has been proven incorrect in reality, but makes for an effective smokescreen argument. To quote the eminently quotable Paul Krugman, circa 2002:

So what's this about?

First, it's about providing political cover. In the face of budget deficits as far as the eye can see, the administration -- determined to expand, not reconsider the program of tax cuts it initially justified with projections of huge surpluses -- must make a show of cutting spending. Yet what can it cut? The great bulk of public spending is either for essential services like defense and the justice system, or for middle-class entitlements like Social Security and Medicare that the administration doesn't dare attack openly.

Privatizing federal jobs is a perfect answer to this dilemma. It's not a real answer -- the pay of those threatened employees is only about 2 percent of the federal budget, so efficiency gains from privatization, even if they happen, will make almost no dent in overall spending. For a few years, however, talk of privatization will give the impression that the administration is doing something about the deficit.

But distracting the public from the reality of deficits is, we can be sure, just an incidental payoff. So, too, is the fact that privatization is a way to break one of the last remaining strongholds of union power. Karl Rove is after much bigger game.

A few months ago Mr. Rove compared his boss to Andrew Jackson. As some of us noted at the time, one of Jackson's key legacies was the ''spoils system,'' under which federal jobs were reserved for political supporters. The federal civil service, with its careful protection of workers from political pressure, was created specifically to bring the spoils system to an end; but now the administration has found a way around those constraints.

We don't have to speculate about what will follow, because Jeb Bush has already blazed the trail. Florida's governor has been an aggressive privatizer, and as The Miami Herald put it after a careful study of state records, ''his bold experiment has been a success -- at least for him and the Republican Party, records show. The policy has spawned a network of contractors who have given him, other Republican politicians and the Florida G.O.P. millions of dollars in campaign donations.''

What's interesting about this network of contractors isn't just the way that big contributions are linked to big contracts; it's the end of the traditional practice in which businesses hedge their bets by giving to both parties. The big winners in Mr. Bush's Florida are companies that give little or nothing to Democrats. Strange, isn't it? It's as if firms seeking business with the state of Florida are subject to a loyalty test.

So am I saying that we are going back to the days of Boss Tweed and Mark Hanna? Gosh, no -- those guys were pikers. One-party control of today's government offers opportunities to reward friends and punish enemies that the old machine politicians never dreamed of.

note: text bolded by me.

This is why we care about Halliburton - we have seen this sort of cronyism multiple times before, and resoundingly rejected it as a nation each time. There is no reason to believe that the voting public would accept a return to a de facto spoils system, with trillions of dollars at its disposal, if they clearly saw it as such. Think about the following events that are emblematic of the traits most hurting Republican approval in recent years:

1) Katrina - with political cronies installed at the top of a disaster management agency, a city drowns while the federal government does nothing. President Bush and his Republican toadies blithely ignore the fact that FEMA has been gutted and "heckuva job, Brownie" becomes a catch phrase to symbolize the GOP culture of corruption.

2) Justice Department politicization - Thanks to the efforts of intrepid blogger/reporter Josh Marshall, the Bush misAdministration was exposed for morphing its Justice Department into a tool of the Republican Party under Abu Gonzales. Once the story hit the traditional media, the approval ratings of Shrub and his congressional bootlickers took a significant hit.

3) Elitist economic policy - After-tax income inequality has risen to its highest level since 1928. Republicans believe the economy is doing just hunky dory while those without a trust fund are stuck in neutral and sliding back. Here's Fred Thompson in one of last year's GOP debate, echoing the standard party line:

MR. THOMPSON: I think there is no reason to believe that we're headed for a recession. We're enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth that started in 2001, and then further in 2003 with the tax cuts that we put in place. We're enjoying low inflation. We're enjoying low unemployment. The stock market seems to be doing pretty well. I see no reason to believe we're headed for -- (pause) -- for economic downturn.

MS. BARTIROMO: Senator, you've painted a very nice picture. The Dow and the S&P 500 today at new highs tonight, record numbers, and yet, two-thirds of the people surveyed said we are either in a recession or headed for one. Why the angst?

MR. THOMPSON: Well, I think there are pockets in the economy. Certainly they're having difficulty. I think there are certainly those in Michigan that are having difficulty. I think you always find that in a vibrant, dynamic economy. I think that not enough has been done to tell what some call the greatest story never told, and that is that we are enjoying a period of growth right now, and we should acknowledge what got us there and continue those same policies on into the future.

In other words, all those useless poor and working-class people should quit complaining, suck it up and wait for the crumbs to trickle down. They just don't get it - if the rich are doing well, then you're just not working hard enough.

Why does this matter to the privatization debate? Because while most citizens won't openly express animosity towards the wealthy in general, an immense amount of rage can be generated towards those enriching themselves off the taxpayer's dime. This brings us to the next point:

4) War Profiteers - Not much explanation is needed. Even the most wingnutty Republicans won't dare to defend these loathsome maggots; all they can do is distract and change the subject. And - surprise! - government contractors pay their executives extraordinarily lavishly. Halliburton, for example, paid its CEO David Lesar a whopping $29,360,000 in 2006 alone. That's two-hundred and ninety-three MILLION taxpayer dimes. And they're honestly saying the government, who pays its top executives no more than $400,000, can't do the job just as efficiently?! Even the most accomplished BS artists can't possibly believe that deep down.

So we reach the key question: how to break through the smoke screen and start debating the privatization matter in honest terms? I'll present my proposed solution in the next post. Stay tuned.....

The media is making itself a political issue

Media bias has been an increasingly important topic among progressive activists. The right wing has learned over many years how to manipulate the traditional media outlets into supporting their agenda. By continuously asserting a "liberal" bias and putting major pressure on any pro-Democratic or liberal coverage (real or perceived), the major corporate news networks have been trained to adopt and promote conservative frames while suppressing liberal ones.

Usually this phenomenon exhibits itself subtly. For instance, the Talking Heads continually refer to the estate tax as the much more nefarious-sounding "death tax" or refuse to critique a Republican's pronounced issue stances against their past legislative votes. And of course one can point out the myriad ways in which the corporate media has kowtowed to John McCain.

But every so often, an example of media bias comes along that is so blatant, so egregious and so misleading that it renders the "liberal media" canard utterly indefensible. Yesterday, Olbermann exposed a shockingly obvious whitewashing of a potentially self-damaging McCain quote by CBS.

From their exclusive interview:

Couric: Senator McCain, Sen. Obama says, while the increased number of U.S. troops contributed to increased security in Iraq, he also credits the Sunni awakening and the Shiite government going after militias. And says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. What's your response to that?

McCain: I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarlane (phonetic) was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

It just so happens that McCain's depiction of this "matter of history" is flat-out false. The Anbar Awakening happened months before the surge. Here's some clarification by EquationDoc at DailyKos:

The colonel was Colonel Sean McFarland, the head of 1st Brigade, 1st Division. They were redeployed to Iraq in January, 2006, in Nineveh province. In May, 2006 they were transferred south to Ramadi, in Al Anbar province, the site of the "Anbar Awakening." The 1st Brigade, 1st Division was redeployed out of Iraq in mid-February, 2007.

That is, the unit McCain is referring to left Iraq approximately one month after Bush announced the surge on January 10, 2007 (troop surge timeline). A month later, on March 20, troop strength was up from 132,000 (in January) to 152,000. Additional commitments to the surge would eventually bring the total to 168,000, in September, 2007.

The Anbar Awakening, or Anbar Salvation Council, was founded by Sheik Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi in September, 2006, again, long before Bush's January 10, 2007 announcement of the surge. And ironically, at the same time troop surge levels peaked and US casualties were in the process of declining, al-Rishawi was killed in September, 2007 by a roadside bomb in Ramadi. It's even more ironic when considered in the context of McSame's claims that we were "able to go out and protect that sheik and others."

In making a statement such as this, either McCain has memory issues or he is simply lying. An editor at CBS likely recognized the inaccuracy of his statement. Thus, CBS chose to scrub out these words and replace them with another, much more on-message answer from earlier in the interview:

Sen. Obama has indicated that by his failure to acknowledge the success of the surge, that he would rather lose a war than lose a campaign.

I dare Marlowe and any other McSame apologists out there to give me an explanation for this switcheroo other than that which I contend: pro-McCain and pro-Republican media bias.

We can see here why those in the traditional press are so condescending towards bloggers and the internet in general: We are a direct threat to their ability to control the narrative. I, for one, hope they keep it up. It will only lead us to shine a greater spotlight on their fatal flaws and ultimately expose corporate newsrooms as the largely charlatan operations that they have become. And when the chickens finally come home to roost, it must be acknowledged that this failing industry will have wrought its own demise by shilling for the followers of a failed ideology.

UPDATE:Here is the segment where Keith Olbermann exposes the story:

Conference Review

As the Netroots Nation conference winds down, I feel a renewed sense of purpose in advocating meaningful change in this country. I was able to meet some real leaders, match faces and voices to screen names and eloquent digital rants, and network with other offline activists in the Beltway progressive circuit. I got to see Austin, a city to which I officially want to
move.... or at least visit again soon! And of course, I learned about new organizing tools and enhanced my depth of knowledge in issue areas like energy policy and campaign finance.

Here are some highlights of my experience at NN08:

• The inspiring speech by Howard Dean Thursday night;
• Al Gore's impromptu appearance yesterday morning, he is truly a political rock star;
• The Energize America panel featuring the venerable Jerome a Paris and a trio of top-tier candidates;
• Sharing a table with Leutisha Stills of Jack and Jill Politics as she vented out loud in advance of what would become a searing critique of the Kos-Harold Ford debate.
• Getting the chance to hear Larry Lessig, an amazing presenter and former colleague of Obama's at Chicago Law School, now running a groundbreaking ethics reform operation called Change Congress;
• A panel last evening with Ezra Klein and others about how to capture this unique opportunity for a dominant social democratic movement.
• And of course, partying hard in the great city of Austin.

Next year in Pittsburgh!

Question for Harold Ford

Here at Netroots Nation, we were just treated to a very civilized lunch debate between Markos and DLC Chair Harold Ford. In general, Mr. Ford was able to muddle the issues effectively enough to avoid drawing the ire of the (obviously) pro-grassroots crowd. One thing that particularly frustrated me, however, was his claim that he had to take very conservative positions on some issues because the demographics of his district demanded it. He represented Memphis until 2006 when he ran a less-than-spectacular failed senatorial campaign. Memphis is one of the most economically devastated inner cities in the nation, and experienced more foreclosures per capita than almost any other Congressional district. Mr. Ford voted for the anti-debtor bankruptcy bill, blocked lending and housing reforms throughout his congressional tenure, and continually supported free-trade, anti-worker policies. Ford now represents an organization that believes that in order to win, Democrats must take positions on many issues that look much like Republican stances. Now I've always been perplexed about this belief, and the following question occurred to me:

If DLC Democrats think conservative policies are so popular, then why do conservatives themselves find it so hard to speak about the issues in plain terms?

They resort to pithy, misleading catch phrases and outright personal smears to control the debate. Frank Luntz and friends have said outright that the country at large finds conservative policies unpopular if expressed honestly. Although I stood in line to ask the above question, I was unfortunately unable to do so due to time constraints. I hope that by posting it here, this question will reach Mr. Ford or one of his ideological brethren who can provide a legitimate answer.

Reporting from Netroots Nation

I'm in Austin this week soaking up the ethos of the Great Orange Satan and the progressive blogosphere at large. Thursday was a kind of slow day, with mostly informal sessions of certain constituencies. I attended one morning group discussion of state-level bloggers and that was quite fascinating. The most poignant moment from my perspective was the discussion about the importance of local bloggers to move the national debate and expand the blogging universe in ways that the large national groups cannot. I also made a work-related connection that will help us better advocate for sensible revenue increases as a partial fix to California's budget crisis.

Aside from that, there wasn't too much of personal interest yesterday, so my friend Chris Colaninno and I saw the sights of summertime in Austin. After enjoying some yummy chicken-fried steak at a local restaurant, we took a tour of the state capitol. It's a very majestic building, with a dome similar to the national Capitol building, and the main atrium is adorned with pictures of each past governor going back to the days of the Republic of Texas. My favorite part: it is powered almost entirely by a beautiful array of solar panels.

The meat of the conference is over the next two days, and I'll be checking in periodically with updates on the various sessions I attend. So far today I have been to Energize America (which I'll report on shortly) and am currently sitting in a panel on a meaningful Middle Class policy.

Follow-up: stepping off the ledge

I'm still a little frustrated with the Obama campaign's current "path of least resistance" strategy, as Chris Colaninno mentions in the comments of the previous post. But the past couple days have given me some cause for optimism (hopefully I can earn my pseudonym at least a little!).

First, in a press conference in Ohio on Tuesday, Barack backtracked significantly from his initial rejection of Clark's statements.

“I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we’ve got to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?” Obama said, responding to a reporter who asked the candidate why he hadn’t called on Wesley Clark to apologize for his remarks yesterday. “I’m happy to have all sorts of conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night."

While I would prefer to see Obama take charge of the issue head-on and confront the matter of McCain's military experience as automatic presidential qualification directly, this bob-and-weave strategy has been working for him and will continue to be effective. It actually mirrors his strategy on the Jeremiah Wright situation pretty closely, and I think he handled that about the best he could have given the fine line he had to walk. Also note that it took him a couple days to find a clear voice in the wake of the Wright "scandal", but thereafter he successfully redirected the conversation by straightforwardly and vocally refusing to acknowledge these petty attacks as a serious campaign issue.

As a corollary, I am becoming more and more convinced that General Clark would be the best choice for Obama as a running mate. This episode is solid evidence that the two can effectively play off each other going after McCain's record in a good cop-bad cop sort of manner. I still think Edwards would also be a great pick, of course for different reasons. However, Clark is probably the safer choice at this point, balances some of Obama's negative attributes (inexperience) and would allow Obama to focus almost entirely on offense. With the good General, the chances of a landslide would be pretty significant as McCain's true nature is gradually exposed.

Venting Some Frustration on Obama and controlling the narrative

Oy. The past week or so has been a frustrating one in election land. Obama seems to be pulling the usual Democratic triangulation in order to stave off attacks against his perceived super-liberalism and lack of patriotism. Obama has recently straddled the issue on guns in reaction to the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning the DC gun ban. He caved in on FISA after pledging just a few months ago to actively support a filibuster, and rubbed it into our faces by acting like Dems got something out of the "deal". To top it off, Today we find out that Mr. Civility has chosen to renounce a smart, legitimate attack by Wes Clark on McCain's presidential qualifications.

In a statement, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "As he's said many times before, Sen. Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by Gen. Clark."

To clarify, the crux of General Clark's statement yesterday was as such:

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility," Clark said. "That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron."

Moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.

So what about this doesn't Obama agree with? Does he believe that getting shot down does qualify McCain to be president? Does he think that going after McCain's history is out of bounds, even after McCain has made it a central part of his campaign? Or d0es he harbor the notion that refraining from direct attacks on John S. McMaverick is a safe election strategy? I worry it is that last point motivating Obama's thinking here. If this is indeed the case, he is ceding an crucial rhetorical point to the GOP, one that will hurt him later on.

See, McSame doesn't have much to run on, since he is a Republican and most voters that the current Republican president all but ruined the country.

• The economy? A mess, and getting messier. McCain loses badly if this is at the forefront of voters' minds.
  
• Ethics and fiscal sanity? Maybe 15 years ago, but not now, not as a member of the party of wide stances, lobbyist-sponsored brothels and a trillion dollar defense contractor boondoggle in Iraq.
• The environment? HAH!
• Immigration? Not an electoral winner, and McCain has a similar position to Obama anyway.
• Guns? Long past its relevance as a mobilizing issue, and defused by the recent Supreme Court decision anyway.
• God and Gays? Maybe effective to appease a chunk of the ornery GOP base, but definitely not enough to win a nationwide election by itself.

Military and security? Ah, now there's an issue in which McCain might have a prayer. McCain is a war hero and withstood torture in Vietnam, whereas Obama did not serve. That issue, if it becomes the defining issue of this race, will vault a clearly inferior candidate into the White House.

I suspect you all knew this already, but it's important to reiterate how crucial it is that Obama take on this issue headfirst, and not allow Sen. McOrnery to define the terms on this issue. The only way he challenges the media frame of Strong Republican, Weak Democrat is to boldly question the silly assumption that only war heroes can effectively lead a nation in wartime, and every war hero would make a superior president. Any thinking person can recognize that to be a gross oversimplification, even if it were true* (see below for more on this point).

Along those lines, one would think that sending out former military commander Wes Clark to challenge McHero's inherent qualifications would be a purely brilliant tactical move on the Obama campaign's part. So it utterly boggles my mind that the campaign would overtly shun such an effort. Sure, a jujitsu tactic would justify the Obama spokesman's reaction, but "of course rejecting" Gen. Clark's attack is way too heavyhanded if they are really pursuing the good cop/bad cop strategy. If this dichotomy continues further, then the line of attack on Obama as a slick flip-flopping double-talker with no substance will be enhanced immeasurably, and frankly he will deserve it. He will be no better a candidate than all the triangulating Dem nominees before him.

In my mind, the only way Barack comes out of this episode unscathed is by clearly yet subtly concurring with the General's take on McCain's qualifications. While it is not too late, I fear the opportunity to do so may be slipping from his grasp.

**************************
A follow-up note on military vs. civilian leadership: While not a disqualification in itself, a military perspective on governance can lead to skewed priorities. The current cadre of chickenhawk neocons notwithstanding, those more focused on conquest abroad than providing for the citizens at home have been of a military background, while those seeking to improve the quality of life of their people are often of a civilian, highly-educated nature. The argument can easily be made that right now, the American government needs to turn inwards and solve the growing problems of economic instability, health care and energy dependence right here at home.