EVERYONE KNOWS

If Obama has offered the Secretary of State position to Hillary Clinton, he has also handed her power over him, after he beat her back for the nomination and at a time when he needs to be seen as in charge. If he didn't make the offer, things are even worse.

What power did he give her - or allow her to take? Because of who she is - both her position and her personality - the media have moved at least some of their focus off Obama and onto her, making him look like a bit of an afterthought - or worse, like someone who is who she campaigned saying he was: an inexperienced kid who was going to need her brilliant help. By intentionally leaking the "news" that she's "torn" over whether or not to accept, she creates a story which moves even more media spotlight onto her, and extends her power over Obama over a longer period of time. AND conveys the message that Obama is not an unstoppable juggernaut, or even someone she needs - and by extension, we need - to respect. In other words, she has just won the nomination, although a little after the fact.

And if she turns him down? What a slap in the face. What a way to convey her own superiority. And what a message to others to the effect that this guy ain't all that much, he's easily dissable.

It's all petty, a cheap meaningless power play, a vengeful attempt at satisfaction and a statement of the infinitude of the Clintons. But Obama let her do it. Maybe he's confident whatever she does can't hurt him. I'm not.

Obama's instinctual apprehension of exactly this kind of behavior led him to ignore Hillary when thinking about his vice president. He should have followed that instinct all the way to its conclusion. This is not the way Obama needs to begin things. Or to maintain his control over international policy.

Hillary Clinton can't be trusted. Everyone knows that.

COOL

Something is fundamentally wrong with Republican brains.

Here's Tim Pawlenty, considered a leading light among moderate Republicans:

"People are worried--"How am I gonna pay for my kid's tuition?" Republicans could be very modern, reach out to young people by saying, "We're going to reduce your tuition, and here's how we're going to do it. We're gonna offer money to regional universities or universities that can put all or most of their degrees online. And we're gonna help pay for it. Instead of building more buildings, we're migrating delivery of higher education services online and once you add one more student to an online program, the marginal cost is zero--and so instead of having a debate about tuition going up X percent or Y percent, we could be talking about tuition going down X percent or Y percent. And, by the way, you can access it anywhere, any time, best of class..." And that would, I think, relate to young people. It would be technologically "current," it would be talking about reforming the way we deliver a service, it would about providing it better, cheaper, faster... it would be "cool."

Cool.

What does a Republican know about cool?

The reason you go to a university is not to learn catechistically, but through an exchange of ideas, discussion, mental stimulation. You also go to college to meet people whom you can make a part of your future life and career path. You can't do either of those online.

We don't want people making education policy who don't understand how education works.

PATSY?

In the three personnel matters involving Obama and the Democrats, we have so far seen nothing new.

Rahm Emanuel is the essence of politics as usual. Probably a good appointment as chief of staff, since he therefore knows Washington so well. But Emanuel stood with Schumer against the 50 state strategy and is as tied to Wall Street as the Clintons are.

Speaking of which - Hillary Clinton doesn't have even the qualifications of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State. She didn't wind up on the Obama ticket because Obama couldn't trust her or her husband not to knife him in the back. Now he gives her the up front role in American foreign policy? As David Ignatius put it:

"Given this ferment, the idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton -- a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that's hungrier and needier still -- strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions. It would, at a stroke, undercut much of the advantage Obama brings to foreign policy. And because Clinton is such a high-visibility figure, it would make almost impossible (at least through the State Department) the kind of quiet diplomacy that will be needed to explore options."

Justin Raimundo of antiwar.com:

"Hillary opposed every significant peace initiative he put forward during the campaign, including a timetable to get us out of Iraq and direct negotiations with our adversaries. She derided this last - and very encouraging - stance as 'naïve' and 'dangerous.' Is this the person who will now be expected to take the lead in facilitating those talks?"

And Lieberman keeps his committee chairmanship? I understand that his vote may be necessary if the Democrats get to 59 - but so far they haven't, and they probably won't; so if that was important, why not wait until the unresolved elections are resolved?

I understand that Obama believes in reaching out - but if he doesn't reach out to progressives pretty soon, with some new faces in some significant posts (for example, Max Cleland in charge of veterans affairs, an appointment for which there is no other logical candidate and no reason why it could not be announced immediately - yet it hasn't been) people are going to look at him the way they look at Bush - as a patsy for the party establishment. People believed the Obama campaign was about principle. Now we get to find out if we got fooled.

Perhaps the most cogent sign that Obama is prey to politics as usual is that, while during his campaign there were no leaks, everything is leaking out now. That has to mean that Obama is losing more control with every old pol he consults or integrates. Plus ca change, etc. Too bad.

THE LIBERAL THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT

Newark mayor Cory Booker opened my eyes tonight.

On Rachel Maddow, he pointed out that the huge fundraising capabilities Obama developed over the internet for his campaign could be used to enlist active support, and even fundraising, for other things.

What if some worthy charitable cause needed funding? Or some important technology project, or people working on global warming, or electric cars? What if the government needed funds to perform some function? Why not raise the money the same way Obama did, using the same network, and with his endorsement?

Call it the liberal thousand points of light. Call it mass based venture capital. Here is a chance for the public - or a specific segment of the public with a specific political philosophy - to directly fund projects deemed necessary for the success of America outside of the political process. No need for Congressional squabbles. No need for tax revenues. It's the people helping government, rather than the other way around.

I really like it.

SOCIAL JUSTICE?

Was just listening to a caller to On Point, in a program discussing Catholicism now. She was from Rhode Island and was commending the bishop there for speaking out against anti-immigration policies. She saw this as a commitment to social justice.

Forgive me, but I can't help believing that the reason the American Catholic church is pro-immigration is that most immigrants are Hispanic, and many Hispanics are fervently Catholic. It seems to me that what the church is looking to do is refill its pews, which are otherwise emptying out.

A church cannot be selective about its commitment to social justice. It's either all in or all out. If you don't care about everyone's well being, then you're just promoting your own theology in supporting social justice concerns in a few cases.

WE'LL SEE

This is worth reading. But it misses the point.

There are three kinds of Jews who will vote Republican: those for whom money is everything, those for whom Israel is everything, and those who are dumb enough to believe, for example, that Obama is a Muslim.

As to the first, there are not many of those, and most of them are in New York. It's always intrigued me that many in high finance are and have been Jews (and today I heard, on On Point, a caller express for the first time what I suspect many are thinking: that Jews are responsible for the economic crash) and also that many prominent socialists, labor leaders and even Communists have been Jews (Marx and Trotsky). Which proves that Jews do not think as a group on economics.

As to the second, most are extremely religious and hard right, and a perfect fit for Republicanism.

As to the third, there are less of those than in any other racial, social or religious grouping other than Asians.

For those for whom Israel is important but not everything, whether or not they should have voted for Obama depends primarily on whether they see peace or power as the best guarantee of Israel's security.

Obama, I suspect, will choose peace. I think he will put some pressure on Israel to enter into serious negotiations toward a final Mideast resolution. I don't think he will want to support the settler movement. What I don't know is how far he will go toward acting on his beliefs.

On the other hand, McCain would have continued Bush's "Israel right or wrong" policies. So if you believe guns and nukes will be enough to secure Israel, and that peace is an utter impossibility, you should have voted Republican. I think. We'll see.

HILLARY AND STATE

Nancy L. Cohen writes on the Huffington Post:

If we shift the angle of vision from the habits we formed during the campaign, Hillary Clinton emerges into view as an inspired choice for secretary of state and a potential agent of transformational change -- exactly what President-elect Barack Obama is seeking. Obama will not choose Hillary to make party peace, nor to bring warmed-over Clintonism into the inner sanctums of the new administration. He will not choose her because she is a woman. If Hillary is the one, she will have been chosen because she has shown visionary leadership on two of the critical international (and moral) questions of our age: climate change and the human rights of women.

If we were picking a secretary of state based on his or her position on climate change, the logical choice would be Al Gore. And women's rights issues will not be at the forefront of international relations in the next few years. And the only thing transformational that Hillary would bring to the post is ... well, she won't even bring that, considering the gender of the person now holding the post, not to mention Madeleine Albright. Ms. Cohen wants a woman. Well, okay.

Ms. Cohen does go on to say:

Others legitimately call attention to her record in the campaign (bad), her record and rhetoric on classic international issues (mixed), the experience and prestige she would bring to the position (mixed). Right. Clinton was a war hawk, and her international attitude is very much tied to Davos and big finance. She'd transform Obama's image, that's for sure.

Which brings me to my point. What Clinton wants or believes in should be irrelevant to her post. There are two tests for the position of secretary of state: what can she bring to Obama in the way of extensive international knowledge, and will she obey Obama's orders? I don't know that Hillary is particularly reliable on either - but I would approve the appointment on the condition that the moment she steps out of line, Obama cans her ass.

SENSE

I'm sure many Israelis agree with this. How many American Jews do?

THE SAME MISTAKE

I beg Obama not to get involved in opposition to California Proposition 8, or any gay issues - at least not until his second year in office. Gays in the military turned Clinton's first term into hell. God forbid Obama makes the same mistake.

NUTCASE?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he's still trying to keep Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman within the Democratic caucus despite anger over Lieberman's support of Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

While he has opposed Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq, "Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators," Reid told CNN's "Late Edition."
"Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase," he said. "Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut."

Well, now - that insults not only Chris Dodd but Chris Shays. Whether or not Lieberman is a right-wing nutcase depends on whether or not you consider neocons nutcases. Because that's what he is.

Pressure is coming from somewhere to keep Lieberman in the caucus. I guess it makes sense not to squander a possible vote at this time. Whether Lieberman stays or goes - if that's up to the Democrats - is a decision which should be postpone until things shake out some more.

DISAPPOINTED

Steve Clemons says at the Huffington Post:

I'd like to see Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, James Galbraith, Leo Hindery, Clyde Prestowitz, Charlene Barshefsky, C. Fred Bergsten, Adam Posen, Robert Kuttner, Robert Samuelson, Alan Murray, William Bonvillian, Doug & Heidi Rediker, Bernard Schwartz, Tom Gallagher, Sheila Bair, Sherle Schwenninger, and Kevin Phillips added to Obama's discussion group on the economy. It would be far more diverse, less predictable, genuinely interesting and produce greater policy option possibilities than the quite "regal" group on stage.

Add Naomi Klein and I'm on board.

The people who are now in the group are heavily business weighted and many of them are implicated in creating the current situation. Academics and out-of-the-box thinkers are entirely absent. If this lineup is indicative of the way Obama thinks, don't look for a new FDR or much of a new anything from Obama.

THE RIGHT THING

The auto industry has asked the government for $25 billion to retool to make fuel efficient cars. I.e., they want us to pay for what they should have done with their profits from when SUVS and trucks were hot.

The right answer? Not interested. We will give you money if 1) you get rid of all the management people who brought you to this pass; 2) you start respecting the people who work for you financially; and 3) you change the names of your corporation and your cars, because nobody wants the shit you make. In order to guarantee that you do the above, we want over 50% of your voting stock. If you're not interested in this deal, we'll wait until you go under and then give the money to buy your plants at a nickel on the dollar to people who know how to run a socially conscious business.

And THEN they want another $25 billion to set up an employee health trust. The right answer: rather than giving you, who have proven your lack of brains and bad attitude, money for health insurance, why don't we take that $25 billion and seed single payer coverage, i.e., the kind of socialism that doesn't just get you off the hook for health care coverage your union contracts require of you, but offers the same coverage to tons of people who don't work for you. How many people could we cover with $25 billion. Bet it's a lot more than are on your payroll.

That would be the right thing to do.

TAX BREAKS WILL DO NOTHING

Obama talks about giving tax breaks to the middle class, but a tax break is no substitute for a job that pays well. That area is where the most important work has to be done, in both the short and the long term.

You either stop the bleeding of good jobs overseas, or you create good jobs which can't go overseas - or both. The first requires a shift in corporate attitude back to where it was when companies valued their employees. It always amazes me when kids crow about their job fluidity. They think they can manipulate the employer system - and they can, if they're uniquely skilled. But most aren't, and can't - and those that are could manipulate even a socialist system to get to the level they want to reach.

I don't know how you legislate a requirement that corporations pay more of their profits to their workers than they now do - in other words, higher pay for work. In the old days, it took revolutions in Europe, and here a hard-fought labor war for unionization, to accomplish that. The problem in the US is not just corporate preference for shareholders over workers; it's also worker compliance in that preference, a contempt for unionization without even understanding what it's for. As I've said before, the real triumph of Reaganism was an immense redistribution of wealth upward with minimal resistance from workers, and no armed conflict. Marx would have been amazed at the accomplishment, and saddened by his inability to work the game the other way. So to expect this change to happen voluntarily is foolish. Class war will be necessary.

As for the second, government can contribute to that by investing in new technologies and, through tax policy or direct legislation, making it painful for companies to shift that work overseas. The argument against that sort of protectionism is that it makes the US uncompetitive. But being competitive isn't worth much when all the profits go straight to executives who are constitutionally unwilling to share a dime of them.

That's what you do if you're the president of America and not just the president of the top 1%.

IRRELEVANT

The stock market is not a financial institution. It isn't even a casino anymore.

The stock market is a place where people put money in which people with lots of money buy low in volume and drive the averages up, then sell high in volume and drive the averages down so that they can do it all over again.

What happens in the stock markets should have nothing whatever to do with what a president does to improve the economy.

POST-RACIAL

Everybody says Obama is black. But he's no more black than he is white - unless we're talking about color, not race. So I can say Obama is white in the same way you can say he's black. Emphasis on his blackness suggests he has certain attitudes which I do not think he has.

Obama is post-racial. As will America be in 30-40 years. He, and his supporters, are just ahead of their time.

TALIBAN REPUBLICANS

Only days after losing the White House and suffering large defeats in both houses of Congress, the Republican Party is striking a posture of defiance.

Within the past 48 hours, the RNC has sent out memos blasting the president elect for appointing Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff and hiring David Axelrod to serve an advisory role.

"Barack Obama's first White House hires are hyper-partisan operatives," read a statement from spokesman Alex Conant. "For a President-elect who promised to change the tone in Washington, it's disappointing that he is filling his White House with partisan bomb-throwers."

Additionally, Republicans have put out a press release drawing attention to the fact that the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had congratulated Obama on his victory -- as if it represented a certain brand of foreign policy acquiescence.

This is reaching across the aisle?

We are never going to be rid of these Taliban Republicans.

NOW IT HAS A NAME

Sheldon Adelson, the 74-year-old casino billionaire who has become the third richest man in America and who has strong ties to the hard-line Likud Party in Israel, has emerged this year a major benefactor of the American right. Past evidence suggests that Adelson will capitalize on his ascent to the top of the Republican money elite to try to build opposition in America to any Middle East peace settlement calling for the division of Israel into two states, one Jewish, the other Palestinian.

In the current election cycle, Adelson has surpassed such past financial mainstays of conservative causes and of the GOP as oilman-corporate raider T. Boone Pickens ($4.6 million 2003-4), Houston real estate magnate Bob Perry ($18.5 million 2003-6) and former Univision CEO Jerry Perenchio ($9.1 million 2003-6).

Here in the US, Adelson is the single largest source of cash for two 501(c)4s: the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and a sister organization, Freedom's Watch, an Iraq War advocacy group largely run by top officials of RJC. Freedom's Watch intends to spend substantially more than $30 million for "independent" ads and phone banks designed to undermine support for Democrats.

FAILING UPWARD

Read.

THE LIST

It being November 1, today I begin a list of people - I use the term loosely - who, whether Obama wins or not, should be shunned in future by progressives for their utterly contemptible political behavior. That means no acknowledgement, no recognition, no "reaching across the aisle." Without cutting these people out of our lives, we will never know a moment's peace.

So ...

John McCain
Sarah Palin
Elizabeth Dole
Members of the Republican Jewish Coalition, many of whom are identified here (I will list them individually sooner or later)
John Boehner
Tim McClellan
Members of the National Republican Trust PAC, a few of whom are identified here
Dick Cheney
Victoria Jackson
Whoever contributed to the Justice Department's new deregulatory guidelines on antitrust law
Steve Schmidt
Nicole Wallace
Ted Stevens
Rudy Giuliani
Opinion Access Corporation
Mike Huckabee
Dick Morris
Bill Cunningham
Michael Savage
Jerome Corsi
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
Hilmar von Campe
Laura Hollis
Robin Roberts
Rose Tennant
Gordon Liddy
David Bossie
Katherine Kersten, Minneapolis Star Tribune
Jill Stanek


I will keep adding to this list, and moving it to the top of the blog.

THE MOVEMENT

Obama's victory was the triumph of a movement that began with the Freedom Riders. But we have heard nothing much from that movement since Kent State. How is that the culmination comes now?

There were three reasons why the movement disintegrated: 1) the assassinations of the '60's; 2) the ascension of Nixon; and 3) the failure of blacks to produce a new inspirational leader. Kent State effectively ended the participation of whites in what was then considered radical politics and movements. The blacks were not able to carry the movement on by themselves.

However, individual blacks took advantage of the accomplishments of the movement - because though no one was talking about it, white barriers to the admission of blacks to white ranks were down. Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, etc. took advantage of that. And so did Obama.

But neither Rice nor Powell had the guts to run for office. What Obama did was put himself out there as a candidate who was no different from many educated whites, and happened to be black. It was whites who picked up on him and his inspiration, which had little to do with his being black. So in a strange sort of way his movement revived at least the spirit of the '60's counterculture, which had been invisible since Kent State. And in the reverse of the '60's, that counterculture led to a revival of the civil rights movement, rather than the other way around. Whites did not really think of Obama as black - not until yesterday, when history reawoke.

And now Obama is considering Bobby Kennedy Jr for head of the EPA (a brilliant choice if he makes it) and Caroline Kennedy for UN Ambassador (another brilliant choice). And all I can think is: why did we let them bury that light for forty years? I'd feel like a kid again, except I'm not a kid, and there've been so many wasted years.

OUT

In an interview with right-wing radio host Glenn Beck, Joe Lieberman made clear that he firmly opposes Democrats gaining 60 seats in the Senate, saying that the survival of the country is in doubt if Democrats break the filibuster threshold.

Enough already. Kick him out.

PEACE AND QUIET

It's as if the Germans had thrown the Nazis out in 1936, and elected Jesse Owens.

Tom Friedman says the North won the Civil War last night. I agree, but not for his reasons. The symbolic event of electing a black man is thrilling enough, but what really gets to me is that the hateful mindset of the last 14 years has been driven back into its home ground, the deep South. And there it will remain as strong as ever until the South decides to give up The Cause and join the rest of humanity. I was calling for the division of the US, but the victory last night was wide enough to obviate that. We simply need to ignore any part of the South that will not change, and learn that we don't have to listen to Fox News anymore. The word that struck me in Obama's speech last night was "immaturity" - describing recent American behavior. We don't have to tolerate tantrums any more. Unlike actual parents, we can simply divorce the children.

And that's the best of it - for a while, it will be safe to seek a little peace and quiet.

PALIN'S QUALIFIED (IN THE REPUBLICAN VIEW)

It's easy to understand why Republicans think Palin is qualified to be president. After all, they thought the same of George Bush.

By Republican doctrine, a president doesn't need to actually know anything. Since they view the president's role as implementing Republican policy and improving Republican prospects politically, all the president really needs is to be presentable (hopefully lovable), ideologically attuned and energized, and available. The president is a salesman, a tool for those who actually make the policy and do the governing. No reason why Palin can't do that.

ALONE

On Hardball tonight, Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri said that Obama's pitch for economic fairness is socialistic. And I've heard the same from McCain. I never thought I would hear a major American political party condemn fairness as something undesirable.

Couple that with Bond's anti-union statements and this is what you get: you who do not belong to the power elite are alone out there. We are not going to let you combine with others against us. You will have to focus your life on making as much money as you can, and getting into our circle, because that's what being an American means. And you're going to get no help from us. And if you choose to live your life for some other reason, the hell with you.

Kudos to the Republicans for finally putting it right out there, and recognizing that America is loaded with boobs who have no clue that's what they're saying - or actually agree, against their own economic interest. Nor do I believe that Obama's election is going to change their attitudes. The preachers are going to have to convert their concept of Christianity back to what it was before they invented the warrior Christ. And if Obama manages to get things done, these people may learn by experience how wrong they are. We're talking years here, people. And we may not have years.

DESPAIR

The LA Times reports that Israel's top domestic security official reportedly warned Sunday that radical Jewish settlers might target Israeli leaders for assassination in order to scuttle any peace proposal that involves ceding occupied West Bank land to the Palestinians.

Yuval Diskin, head of Shin Bet, Israel's internal security agency, told Cabinet members Sunday that he was "very concerned" that settlers and their supporters would "use firearms in order to halt diplomatic processes and harm political leaders," the Associated Press reported, according to an account from a participant at the meeting.

It moves me toward despair to consider that Jews can behave like this.

And there are people just as crazy here.

ON THE VOTING LINE IN TAMPA

People with Obama stickers on their shirts were passing out bottled water, snacks and bringing chairs for people that were having trouble standing for long periods. The McCain supporters outside the line were shouting, and holding signs like "Communist", "Terrorist", "Baby Killer", "Liberals are diseased", etc...

And there you have it.

AWFUL

The word on possible McCain cabinet and staff picks? Terrifying.

Joe Lieberman as Secretary of State? Omigod! It is not possible to send a worse signal out to the world.

Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina as official or unofficial advisers? Fiorina wrecked HP. Whitman oversaw global marketing for Mr. Potato Head. Major league members of the corporate goniffocracy.

Rudy Giuliani as attorney general? Kiss your democracy goodbye.

Heather Wilson for Energy or national security? She's one of the New Mexico politicians who put pressure on David Iglesias to prosecute phony vote fraud claims.

So far, awful. Will it get worse?

SHE'S OUT OF THE CLOSET

On Sunday morning, vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin spoke in Canton following a warm-up performance by Grammy winner Gretchen Wilson, a popular singer who has had five singles in the Top Ten on the Billboard country charts, including her #1 hit Redneck Woman.

I guess it is now officially OK to call Palin a redneck.

THE GRAYS

So Wright has finally come up. Again.

What doesn't come up, on either side, is any kind of understanding of where Wright is coming from.

Younger, successful blacks like Obama and Rice don't need liberation theology. But it's not to be expected that someone Wright's age is going to feel overwhelming love for America, considering what it put his generation - and those before him - through. He's simply telling the truth as he sees it - and, agree or not, he has good reason to feel the way he does.

The American inability to tolerate criticism, and to conflate criticism of behavior or policy to criticism of the country (meaning what the country theoretically stands for and is about) reminds me of the attitude of many Jews toward Israel. Criticize Israel's policy toward Palestinians and you're an anti-Semite - you hate Jews. Criticize America's policy towards blacks and you're ... what? Terrorist? Socialist? Communist?

You know, my country right or wrong is fine when the chips are down - but if you can't criticize what your country does, you are powerless. Suppose some president dissolved Congress and declared a dictatorship. It's still America (barely); is it okay to be critical?

You don't make progress if you see things in black and white. It's the people who see the grays that move things along.

VANUATU

David Broder says this is the best campaign he's ever covered. It's time for him to retire.

What he means is that it's the most fascinating, the most dramatic, the best from a reportorial point of view. Standing detached - in Vanuatu? - he sees it and marvels. But you'd have to be in Vanuatu to manage such detachment, because I don't think anywhere in the world there are people, those people think this horror show is the "best" campaign.

The consequences of this fascinating show don't seem to matter to Broder.

Another story on the Today Show, about a Chanel store in New York which contains art "inspired" by Chanel's signature handbag. Exactly how shallow are we going to get?

POP CULTURE

According to the Today Show, there's great interest in this election because it's a pop culture event. As with American Idol. We're into the characters and the story line. We want to see who wins. And we're all going to have election night parties. (They were giving us recipes.)

If they're right, we can expect a low turnout from the young and the pop culture obsessed - because most people don't participate in pop culture, they watch it. And that, it appears, is what's happening. My guess: fewer young people will vote in this election than voted on American Idol. Too bad you can't text a vote in ...

GUNS

Gun possession has become a critical factor in the self-definition of the right. Why? Their guns are not for fun, or for shooting meese. Their guns are to "defend" themselves against - increasingly - "liberals." And liberals have now been officially determined to be socialists, even communists, and the next step - in the wonderful alchemy of ignorance - will be islamofascists, or whatever word they concoct next. If we have a black president, the war will have begun. So I advise you, if you're a liberal, to get a gun - preferably a big one - and learn how to use it. I mean, people like you are not the reason we need gun control, right?

HOWARD DEAN ON THE JEWISH VOTE

You know, I'll tell you, as someone who has "married into the tribe," as they say...the reason that American Jews vote for Democrats has nothing to do with Israel. It has everything to do with what makes a Jew in America. These are folks who emigrated from lands where most of the time they were persecuted - I'm not talking just about the people who came over because of Hitler, I'm talking about the people who came over before that because of pogroms in the Ukraine, or Russia. They have such a community-based view of what we owe each other as people; this is a very community-minded group, and that's why they vote Democratic. And the Republicans, always, every year, [say] "Oh my God, the Democrats aren't going to get the Jewish vote because of Israel!" First of all, the Democrats are just as pro-Israel as the Republicans are. But secondly, the Democratic values are core values in the Jewish community, and that is why we always end up with between 70% and 80% of the Jewish vote.

_________________________________

I must know, or know of, the entire 25% of Jews who hate Obama. So does this mean I can stop freaking out?

WHO?

According to Politico, these are the people being considered for top positions in an Obama administration, with my comments:

White House chief of staff: Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.); Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.); or dark horse candidate Bill Daley, Commerce secretary under President Bill Clinton and now an executive with JPMorgan Chase & Co. Emanuel is too tied to Wall Street. Daley is a Chicago connection - son of Richard Daley. According to Wikipedia, in 1993 he served as special counsel to Clinton on issues relating to the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would not endear him to labor. In 1997, Daley became Secretary of Commerce in the second administration of President Bill Clinton, and he remained at that post until July 2000, when he became chairman of Vice President Al Gore's presidential campaign - not a good resume item. In May 2004, Daley was made Midwest Chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase and Bank One Corp. to oversee post-merger operations from Chicago. Daley currently serves on the Boards of Directors of Boeing, Merck & Co., Inc, Boston Properties, Inc., and Loyola University Chicago. He also sits on the Council on Foreign Relations. If he is selected, it will confirm my concern that Obama will not be a very progressive president.

Deputy chief of staff: Pete Rouse, chief of staff in Obama Senate office; Ron Klain, former chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore; longtime Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett; Jim Messina, campaign chief of staff. No opinion here.

Senior adviser: David Plouffe, David Axelrod, Steve Hildebrand. To be expected.

Outside adviser: Abner Mikva. Another Chicago connection and long time adviser and friend. Where he stands on anything is not clear.

Ambassador at large on climate change: former Vice President Al Gore. A meaningless position.

National security adviser: Jim Steinberg, the deputy under Clinton; Gregory Craig, special counsel to Clinton; Susan Rice; retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni; Samantha Power of Harvard’s Kennedy School. Craig directed Clinton's impeachment defense and has been a foreign policy advisor to Kennedy and Albright. He's a high profile Washington lawyer but where his foreign policy cred comes from I have no idea. Rice reminds me of the other Rice, and her specialty seems to be African affairs, but she's got plenty of foreign policy cred (see Wikipedia). Power is particularly knowledgeable on human rights, genocide and AIDS and teaches at JFK School of Government. She quit Obama's team after calling Clinton a "monster."

White House counsel: Bob Bauer, campaign counsel; Chris Lu, Obama legislative director and member of transition staff; Heather Higginbottom, campaign senior policy strategist and longtime aide to Sen. John F. Kerry; Mike Strautmanis, congressional affairs for campaign and former chief counsel in Senate office

White House economic adviser: Austan Goolsbee, senior policy adviser to campaign and University of Chicago economics professor; Jason Furman, director of economic policy for the campaign; Michael Froman, former Treasury chief of staff, Citigroup executive and Harvard Law classmate with Obama. I don't trust anyone in the economics department of the University of Chicago, but Goolsbee doesn't appear to be a Friedmanite. Furman worked closely with Robert Rubin, not a recommendation in my opinion, but his family leans left. Michael Froman doesn't have a Wikipedia page and I don't want anyone who's been at Citigroup anywhere near this administration.

Domestic policy adviser: Heather Higginbottom, Jason Furman, Neera Tanden. Higginbottom comes out of the Kerry campaign. Wow. Tanden was Hillary's campaign policy director. Wow again.

Political director: Erik Smith. No idea who this guy is. This is Rove's position.

Defense secretary : Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.); Richard Danzig, Navy secretary under Clinton; John Hamre, president and CEO of CSIS and former deputy secretary of Defense; President Bush’s incumbent, Robert Gates was involved in Iran/Contra while at CIA and does not have an impressive resume. Danzig is neither here nor there. I'd go with Hagel.

Attorney general: Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine; Eric Holder, who was deputy AG under Clinton and is now with Covington & Burling and led Obama’s vice presidential search; Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick; Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano. Let me be absolutely clear on this - we do not want to lose a governor in any of these states.

Supreme Court nominee: Washington superlawyer Robert Barnett; legal scholar Cass Sunstein; Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick; 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York; Elena Kagan, dean of Harvard Law School. Barnett is a Washington hotshot, worked for Mondale. Not a Constitutional scholar, I suspect. Sotomayor is a Bush appointee but is hated as a judicial activist by the right. She's Puerto Rican and considered a centrist. Kagan is a New Yorker and clerked for Thurgood Marshall. She's a professor at the University of Chicago. My guess is it will be one of these women.

Secretary of State: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.); Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) Lugar's my choice.

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: Susan Rice, senior campaign national security adviser and State Department and National Security Council official under Clinton; Caroline Kennedy. Give it to Kennedy.

Treasury secretary: former Clinton treasury secretaries Larry Summers and Robert Rubin; FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Blair; New York Fed President Timothy Geithner, former Treasury under secretary and Assistant Secretary; former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker. I don't like any of 'em. How about Paul Krugman?

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Tom Daschle; Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a physician; John Kitzhaber, medical doctor and former Oregon governor. Good God, what a waste of Dean!

Health care czar in White House: Tom Daschle.

Education secretary: David Boren, president of the University of Oklahoma and former U.S. senator and former Sooner State governor; Former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean (R), who was chairman of the 9/11 commission; Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)

Environmental Protection Agency administrator: Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.); Kathleen McGinty, former head of the Pennsylvania Environmental Protection Agency. Chafee would be great.

Commerce secretary: Penny Pritzker; Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius; Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). Please don't take Sebelius out of Kansas.

Homeland Security secretary: Former Sen. Gary Hart (D-Col.); William Bratton, Los Angeles police chief and former New York police commissioner; former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), a member of the 9/11 Commission; Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.); Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) Gary Hart, please.

CIA director: Former Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.); Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) Roemer, please. Harman is not to be trusted.

Director of National Intelligence: Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Longtime Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett; Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) Wow, Jackson would be such a kick in the teeth to Republicans!

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Former Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.); Tammy Duckworth, the director of Illinois Veterans’ Affairs, Iraq veteran and former Democratic House candidate; Bush’s incumbent, James Peake. Absolutely Cleland.

Secretary of the Interior: Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.); Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Secretary of Energy: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R); Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). Schwarzenegger, if he'd take it - and Maria might make him.

Secretary of Transportation: Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.); Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.)

Secretary of Labor: Former Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.); Andrew Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union; Kay Hagan of North Carolina (if she loses her challenge to U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole); Jeanne Shaheen, former New Hampshire governor (if she loses her challenge to U.S. Sen. John Sununu). Like 'em all.

Secretary of Agriculture: Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack; Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.)

Director, Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (Obama's renamed faith-based office): Josh DuBois, campaign's director of religious affairs. Is this entirely necessary?

SOMETHING LIKE THAT

Today McCain announced that Joe the Plumber is an American hero, and that he is going to take Joe to Washington if he wins. Let's see - national security adviser, chief of staff, Defense, State, the Treasury?

McCain's campaign is not American heroes, it's American Idol - which is the only place Joe the Plumber belongs. A McCain victory will indicate that we are the stupidest empire that ever lived - or that, being so stupid, it's time for the empire to end. Or for the end of democracy. Or something like that.

DISASTER

Is Sarah Palin capable of operating as president? Why not? She's smarter than Bush, and no more or less ignorant. She'd just re-enact the Bush presidency, with this one difference:

Because of his family's history and connections, Bush had to listen to some moderate voices. At least in the beginning, they held him back a little. Palin will listen to no moderate voices. She can be elected by right wing America, and she would be much more dangerous than Bush. There is no hope that she would, like Nixon and Reagan, make an opening to enemies. Unlike Bush, she knows what a neocon is and is one herself. She would be a complete disaster as president - the kind of disaster in which people would seriously plan to leave the country.

STAY HOME, PLEASE

So Reagan's chief of staff Ken Duberstein endorsed Obama. So what? People who could be influenced by things like this went to Obama months ago.

From what I've been reading, the current undecideds are people who are looking for perfection and not finding it, or people who are split because each candidate opposes something they want, or people who have no idea what they think.

I hope they all stay home.

And why are Powell, Duberstein, Eagleburger coming out and saying this now? They are doing their little bit to help McCain lose, so that in the wake of that loss they - the traditional conservatives - can take their party back. Or disassociating from McCain, for the same reason. I think before Palin they thought they would have some influence with McCain, but they see how he's run the campaign and don't think McCain will be able to put the brakes on party crazies, particularly with Palin on the bully pulpit.

Good luck to 'em. It won't work. The Republican party is not going back to its Bush I nature. And every one of these guys facilitated its mutation into the howling asylum it is now. They know Palin has a hold on the maniacs. Maybe they actually have some dislike for Know Nothings, but it's too late. It's done. Forget it.

OUTSIDE THE BOX

The essence of the McCain campaign is condemnation of intellectual curiosity, vivid discussion of ideas, or any discussion at all. It's the (barely) secular equivalent of exoommunication and a hard-line defense of orthodoxy. Think outside the box and you're anti-American. Exactly the kind of positioning that has brought us to our current pass. Never mind economics or foreign policy - it's this basic kind of Bush thinking that we'll get four more years of, and too many people think that would be just fine. Read.

DON'T NEED IT?

This suggests to me that the bank bailout was unnecessary, and was simply a gift to those few well-connected institutions around the Goldman Sachs nexus that needed help because of their own bad practices.

SHOCKER

This is stunning. I thought Bronfman was solid AIPAC

WILL THEY VOTE?

This is the great concern. Will these people vote?

THE MARGIN

According to the Daily Kos national tracking poll, McCain has been doing exactly what he said he would do - picking up one point a day. The race is now 50-45. Obama's percentage hasn't moved, which suggests what I have been saying: any movement among undecideds will go to McCain.

What we are seeing is the Bradley effect, so to speak - only it isn't secret this time. These are voters who were reluctant to say they were going to vote against a black, but have decided at the last minute to announce themselves. There was never any possibility Obama could get these votes.

The big question, as I said a few days ago, is how many undecideds won't vote at all. Because that is going to be the margin of an Obama victory.

UPDATE: Obama is up one today. Surprise to me.

JOE

Hey, if your name is Joe, better change it - because nobody is going to take you seriously anymore.

A PRAYER

James Dobson has sent out a letter predicting, if Obama wins, terrorist attacks in American cities, churches losing their tax exempt status for not allowing gay marriages, pornography pushed in front of our children, doctors and nurses forced to perform abortions, euthanasia as commonplace, inner-city crime gone wild because of lack of gun ownership, home schooling banned, restricted religious speech, liberal censorship shutting down conservative talk shows, Christian publishers forced out of business, Israel nuked, power blackouts because of environmental restrictions, brave Christian resisters jailed by a liberal Supreme court, and finally, good Christian families emigrating to Australia and New Zealand.

On that final point, defining "good Christian families" as people who will believe this stuff: from his lips to God's ears. Which he says is something which happens regularly.

I DON'T WANT TO LOSE YOU

This was the first cut I did with D.C. Larue. The recording was terrible, and the whole thing didn't quite work - but there are parts of it I'm very proud of.

CATHEDRALS

Here's a very good interview with D.C. which tells the whole story of that collaboration. And I'm grateful to D.C. for his kind words.

GOOD MORNING MY LOVE

This is the last song I did with D.C. Larue. The best thing he ever wrote, and I loved the production. But by then he had no label, and we couldn't place the record. Since then I lost my copy of the mix, so I was delighted to find this video on YouTube. Still love it. Background vocals by the Harlem Boys Choir.

WHO HE THINKS HE IS

A realization: McCain's campaign is classically messianic. Here's how it goes:

Democrats are evil, Republicans are evil, big city people are evil, Wall Street is evil, the rest of the world is quintessentially evil - and the sole goal of all of them is to destroy you.

But I shall protect you, for I have been given the wisdom to correct every evil and counter every threat. You need not ask how I'll do that, or do anything at all except to believe in Me and follow Me.

It's that simple.

It's not just the campaign, but also McCain that's messianic. People who follow false messiahs will follow him. But if he loses, it's not just that he ran a bad campaign - it's also because of who he thinks he is.

YES!

Youbetcha! (Does anyone actually say that anymore south of Alaska?)

GENERATION WE

Obama's Kissemmee speech tonight was likely the best political speech I have ever heard. Of course, that's because he said everything I wanted to hear. But most importantly for me, he said that the Bible teaches him that we are our brothers' keepers, and specifically cited the Golden Rule. He said that sense of social obligation is what has been lost in the last eight years. That was critical to me.

Why?

First, because it points out how far right-wing evangelicals have strayed from Jesus' message - and this from a man who is born again. He threw back in their faces all the hate and contempt they preach. I never thought I would hear that from a presidential candidate.

And second because, since the Republicans have gotten down to class-war basics with their taunts of socialism, exposing the core of conservative philosophy, Obama met it with the essence of humanism, the call for mutual respect and thinking about things beyond one's own nose. It's been thirty years since the Me Generation came to power. Obama is calling out Generation We.

So now it's all been said. And we'll