The Baucus Bill Protects a Woman's Right to Choose

I'm not a fan of the Senate Finance Committee's bill that cleared committee earlier today, almost entirely because it lacks a public option. I believe that without a strong public option, the notion of health-care reform will be little more than a myth. But in a turnaround, the Baucus bill today did not restrict any government funding of abortions for women who can't afford them. And that's a good thing. Nearly 36 million women voted for President Obama last November, and I'd venture to say that most of them did so with the assumption that a pro-choice candidate would protect this particular right. I understand that not all Americans, albeit a minority, do not share my view on this particularly sensitive issue and loathe the notion of their tax dollars, no matter how few and no matter how indirectly, will be funding abortions for low income women. But we don't get to cherry-pick which programs and priorities our tax dollars fund. Millions of Americas have strong conviction that we should not fund fighter jets or tanks, but I think it's a good idea that we continue to do so. Abortion is a legal right in this country and a function of the medical system to which women are entitled. If it becomes available only to women who can afford it, we lack the equal protection our government supposedly guarantees. Even when the topic is controversial, it's always good when we continue to defend the rights of those who need it. True health insurance reform needs to ensure that procedures are covered even if a minority disapproves.

The Nobel Peace Prize: Sending the wrong message

I congratulate a truly surprised President Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize, but I am concerned that, for him, it's an award given too soon. There is no doubt in my mind that President Obama is precisely the type of person for whom the prize is intended. I would have been certain he'd win this award at some point in his career, just not this early. But while Obama may be a worthy recipient of the prize, the country he leads is not.

If the Nobel Peace Prize was, as the President said, a recognition of America’s efforts, then we most certainly do not deserve it. America deserves an award for facing an unprecedented challenge of global reach and choosing a path of apathy. We deserve an award for resisting innovation to grow our economy and protect our planet. If there were a prize for dividing as a society when we need to unite behind a common purpose, surely America is the top choice.

Peace requires progress. And as Americans and as a country, we have spit in the face of progress, we have placed roadblocks in its path like errant schoolboys vandalizing property – simply because we can. Peace requires thinking big; and America in 2009, despite the brilliant and ambitious rhetoric of President Obama, is almost entirely about thinking small. Part of the problem is that, like a spoiled child, America almost never gets told it’s doing something wrong, at least not by the people who matter. In fact, quite the contrary, we get rewarded with things like the Nobel Peace Prize.

This sends the wrong message. It says we’re doing something right, it says we don’t need to change our ways. The rejection of Chicago for the 2016 Olympics – which was a loss for America – was such a statement. It was a austere world body saying, “America, you’re no longer #1; you’re no longer better than us.” And they were right, but of course we didn’t get the message back home. We used it to further criticize our nation’s leader, instead of criticizing our outmoded ways.

America needs a wake-up call, not a prize for our indifference.

Let's start some rumors

Late last week, the Democratic National Committee aired a web ad claiming the Republican Party wants to kill Medicare. I was encouraged to see this, not because I care about the GOP’s stance on Medicare, but because the Democrats were finally airing an attack (albeit nobody was really listening because it was awkwardly timed and poorly marketed) that was, at best, borderline true.

Does the Republican Party really want to “kill” Medicare? It doesn’t really matter; all that does, is that we’re saying they want to and that sounds really bad. So let’s start spreading the rumor. Rumors are great things in politics, particularly when they’re hard to trace back to a particular source. It would be really great if the Democrats could start some rumors of their own. Yes, essentially what I’m advocating is that we start lying. It’s highly effective and in a war, you need to play by the standards that your opponent is, except better. Rumors are so much better than the facts. It’s not very effective –or fun – to argue that we want to cut costs and reduce overhead and increase preventative care. I’m already asleep. And I don’t have an enemy.

On the other hand, if someone starts a rumor saying the Republicans want to stop immunizing children then people can really start screaming on CNN. How about the Republicans want to ban anesthesia? Or limit the number of prescriptions you can fill? Or euthanize your dog?

Any would work, and I’d imagine with a little time and creativity, the crowd at Air America or the Huffington Post could come up with some real doozies. I’d love to start hearing some of them. I’d love to hear folks with a dose of crazy (because, believe me we’ve got our share of crazy) spewing off on cable news and at town hall meetings about some left-wing rumors. Because we can scare people too. And when you do, you win.

Is that what I think public debate should be about? Not at all.
Is this right? Absolutely not. But I’m sick of losing.

Laying a New Foundation

PHILADELPHIA – President Obama’s televised address to Congress next week is a big deal, and it is my fervent hope that The White House rises to the occasion. These sorts of appearances before a joint session are rare, underscoring the importance of what President Obama will have to say on Wednesday. And this particular address comes not only at a critical point for our country, but at a pivotal moment for the Democratic Party. After a resounding, once-in-a-generation rout of the Republican Party last November, the Democratic Party, true to its form, has managed to mangle its message and give the Republicans a clear, albeit illogical, path from the wilderness back to relevance. The GOP is steering the national debate, and in the process, again preventing health care from reaching millions of Americans.


Additionally, however, is the toll the internal divisions of the Democratic Party are hurting both the president and the Democrats. If health care fails, we can surely blame it on the Republicans, but there truly is nobody to blame except for moderate Democrats – people like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Max Baucus.


But the divisions within the party that have long existed but went on seeming hiatus for the Obama presidential honeymoon, are back in forms beyond the moderate Dems in the Senate. A big reason that the President’s poll numbers have recently plummeted is a significant drop in job approval from liberal voters and young voters, alike. Liberals and young people (often coterminous) are frustrated with the Administration’s eagerness to compromise on health care, irritated by the apparent desire to achieve bipartisanship over progress and tiring of the failure to withdraw more troops from Iraq or pass bills such as a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”


The President should take a cue from the late Speaker Tip O’Neill and remember to “dance with the one that brung ya.” He needs to articulate a plan for health insurance reform – and later for the rest of the “Change” we were promised – and unite the Democratic supermajority in the Senate and the Democratic House behind it. If he can get certain Republicans like Olympia Snowe on board for some it, great. But if not, so be it; He needs to accomplish something, with or without the Republican Party. And his Democratic base will be much more satisfied and eager to go work for candidates in 2010 if he does it without.


Obama is inclined towards compromise and bipartisanship and breaking down the divisions that have torn us apart in the past. That was central to his campaign in 2008, but it’s simply not realistic and it’s important for him to govern in the world in which we live, not an ideal world. This Republican Party and these Republican voters are not looking to compromise or unite; they are looking to destroy and divide. And they are utterly effective at both of those.


Meanwhile, the Democrats are terrible at marketing. The Republican Party managed to sell effectively sell a horrendous war by making it seem necessary for our survival. They might have, again, destroyed hope of health insurance reform by making it seem like a sure roadblock to our survival. They get everyone on the same page, using understandable (if wrong) concepts such as “death panels.” The Democrats, on the other hand, are barely in the same book and using concepts such as “access and affordability for every American while not restricting the choice and free market growth of any person or company.” It’s time for a winning sales pitch.


President Obama needs to make an unprecedented sales pitch on Wednesday. He needs to sell both the men and women sitting in front of him and the millions watching on television. (And Twittering it, for that matter.) By the time the speech concludes on Wednesday, it needs to be readily apparent that the situation is different than it is today. He needs to give the sort of address that historians look back on as a turning point. Fortunately, that is precisely what President Obama is best at.


This turning point is for not only the health care debate, but as I said earlier, the political atmosphere and the country itself. The President needs to lay a “New Foundation.” For the first several months of his administration, he has used this phrase with some regularity and it has not yet caught on as his trademark, as his “New Deal” or “Great Society.” Decades later, people fondly point to both of those sets of programs even if they cannot name a single element of either the “New Deal” or “Great Society.” They were bold, beneficial and transformative.


We need not simply such a program in the United States at this moment, but such a feeling. The sense that we are truly beginning anew. That the President has watched the bitterness brewing over the past decades displayed at town hall meetings and on cable television over this past summer and he has said, “enough.” That the President has heard too many horror stories about our health care system, seen too many die from lack of coverage and he has said, “enough.” That he has watched as his party’s noble goal has been morphed into a caricature of a death squad, and he has said, “enough.” Enough already.


It is time to lay a New Foundation. And it can begin on Wednesday night.

Harry and Louise and Hate

The "vicious" and devastating attacks on health care reform in 1993 would seem like a dream-come-true today. The enduring symbol of the anti-HillaryCare movement has been the "Harry and Louise" ads of that year, known by people who have never seen the ads but know the names. In 1993, the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) paid to produce a commercial criticizing the Clinton plan as too bureaucratic and urging viewers to call their Members of Congress. The HIAA, now called America's Health Insurance Plans, is a legitimate (and extremely well-funded) interest group. They have a necessary role in any debate about health insurance reform. Their attacks in 1993 were, at least, rooted in some semblance of policy. Harry and Louise - who today are airing ads in support of President Obama's plan - are polite and sweet as pecan pie. That's not true of the attackers in 2009.

Today, the attacks on health care are senseless, baseless, and about as "evil" as Sarah Palin believes health care reform to be. In 2009, there are no major health care lobbying groups against reform that are airing TV commercials urging viewers to call their Representative or Senator. There are ultra-right wing groups, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, former half-term governors of Alaska, and Kool-Aid dispenseries that are getting their followers to threaten their Representative or Senator and scream at him during town hall meetings.

Over the past couple of weeks, I've met a number of these opponents of health insurance reform in person. They actually oppose it, but I'm not convinced that nearly any of these avowed health care opponents really knows why. Sure, they think that President Obama wants to socialize our health care system, that he wants to replace your doctor with the postmaster, and that he wants to set up a special Congressional committee to kill your grandmother, but they don't actually oppose the health insurance reform as proposed. They don't know anything about the health insurance reform as proposed. They just want to oppose something, anything. And that's instinctual and hard to overcome. The health care debate of 1993 was before the disaterous Republican Revolution of 1994. It was before the advent of Fox News. It was before the Lewinsky saga and the fear-based administration of George W. Bush. Now it is assumed that if one party proposes something, the other party will vigorously oppose it, no matter what it is. And that really isn't all that terrible. Let a vigorous debate take place in the public arena and may the best proposal win.

But this isn't a debate, it's a shouting match and a contest of fear tactics. The right-wing is spewing lies, hate and a whole lot of crazy. We can't fight crazy with facts; that has never worked. But we cannot let this fail. It's about more than the harm it would do to the Obama administration. He has health insurance and so does everyone who works for him. But nearly 50 million Americans do not, and we cannot let them down. And as more and more Americans declare bankruptcy because of health costs and as more and more businesses close because of an inability to pay for private health insurance, we can't afford to let our recession worsen as we neglect an industry that is 1/6 of the economy.

This fight is too important to let a bunch of crazy people with 6th grade educations bring it down. They might be controlling town hall meetings in community centers, but we control the United States government, so I like our odds. And we won the election - on a platform of health insurance reform.

Miss California is Wrong

Between the potential revoking of the crown of Miss USA California and the ever-more important decision on the behalf of five U.S. states to legalize equal marriage, including, recently, Vermont and Maine, there has been a great deal of chatter on the internet, on the airwaves, and in the streets about the debate over same-sex marriage in the United States, for obvious and important reasons. I don;t think it comes as much surprise to most of you that I wholeheartedly support same-sex marriages. Scratch that. I support marriage equality. There is no reason my marriage should be referred to any differently than yours. But with Miss California USA's recent comments on "opposite marriage" and her defense of free speech (something I also tirelessly support), there seems to be a need for comment. And I am breaking my blog silence to do so.

With regards to Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean's, statement during the competition about her personal support for "opposite marriage" as opposed to full marriage equality for all United States citizens, I object, and I object to her holding the crown, worthless as it may be. As a number of my close friends and advisers have pointed out, if Ms. Prejean had said she believes interracial marriage to be wrong, there is not a chance in hell that she would hold the title she holds today. What we, as a society, need to start acknowledging, is that what she said is equally as wrong. Opposing marriage equality (same-sex marriage/gay marriage) is wrong. It is WRONG, it is immoral, it is un-American and it is intolerable. I am sick and tired of being told that I need to tolerate the opinions of bigots who believe that I am less of an American citizen than they are. I am done. If you believe that marriage (a legal right; I am not referring at all to the Christian sacrament of Matrimony, which is different) should be exclusively between a man and a woman, then, I am sorry, but you are narrow-minded and wrong, and I am not required to indulge your ignorance. What the Miss California USA highlighted is that while same-sex marriage is, inextricably, a complicated and hotly debated issue in the U.S., it is not an issue where both opinions hold equal weight. One side favors the Constitution of the United States, which millions of men and women have, and others, including myself, will willingly, die for, and another favors archaic bigotry. I do not have to accept her point of view. Her point of view is flat out wrong. I put blame on the committee for allowing Ms. Prejean to keep her crown. What she said is not simply a matter of opinion; it is bigoted, anti-American, and wrong.

What gives me hope is for as fast as she says these ignorant comments, more and more states acknowledge my Constitutional right to equality, so her opinion really does not matter. But, seriously, we should not be rewarding it.

Republicans and Race

I continue to be amazed not only at how much the Republican Party doesn’t seem to understand why they have such difficulty winning the support of minorities, but how condescending they can be in doing so. It seems to have taken the election of the first African American president to alert the GOP to the fact that they cannot continue to so earnestly alienate minorities. But their ongoing attempts to win the support of more than just white men are terribly pathetic. They’re also futile, naïve, and fairly insulting.

The country elects a Democrat who is a black man its President, the Republicans elect a black man party chairman. The nation watches as an African American President addresses Congress, the Republicans follow that with a governor who is Indian American. Rap, hip hop and R&B artists help make both the President and his call to national service popular among American youth, the Republicans begin awkwardly using phrases like “off the hook” and “you be da man.”

They just don’t get it. Jon Stewart put it well on “The Daily Show” last month:

“You know, Republicans, I appreciate what you’re trying to do here. He’s your
voice of change, your Barack Obama. But, you know, it’s not as simple as that. I
know you want to take his fight to the Democrats. But Michael Steele, he’s like,
remember when your kid really wanted a Tickle Me Elmo for Christmas? But all the
stores were sold out, so you went to Chinatown and got him a Giggle-Time All-Mo.
Michael Steele is the Republican Party’s Giggle-Time All-Mo”

Has it occurred to the Republican Party that maybe part of the reason that African Americans vote so overwhelmingly for Democrats in every election is about more than racial symbolism? Maybe the consistent support of the Democratic Party for civil rights – not just for African Americans, but for all Americans – has something to do with it. Maybe the Democratic emphasis on supporting America’s cities, inner city education and housing has something to do with it.

One of the reasons people – and parties – lose elections, is they treat the electorate as though they are stupid. Reminding the country that, while the Democratic Party has 42 African Americans in Congress, scores of African American mayors, two African American governors, not to mention an African American president, that they (the GOP) just elected an African American RNC chair, is not about to convince black voters that suddenly the Republican Party shares the values of so many African Americans. Voters think, voters choose, and believe it or not, sometimes they even do so on the basis of policy.

Plus, when Michelle Bachmann tells RNC Chair Michael Steele, “you be da man” she not only sounds like an idiot, but she highlights the ignorance the GOP has about race, because everyone – black, white, whatever – can see through that. And it’s pretty demeaning.

I've been in that wilderness before

After the midterm elections in 2002, and again after the 2004 election, Democrats were doing a lot of soul searching. In fact, for a couple years it felt like that’s all we were doing. We had “lost” the White House in 2000, gotten our asses handed to us across the country in 2002, and failed to win back the White House against a president with an approval rating below 50 percent. Massachusetts, Maryland and Connecticut – notoriously blue states – elected Republican governors.

In November 2004, the AP wrote, “Soundly rejected in their attempt to win back control of Congress, Democrats face months of soul searching as they watch Republicans flex their increased power in the House and Senate and celebrate the defeat of one of the Democrats' most visible national leaders.” The Democratic Party seemingly had no message. And once again, as the adage goes, we formed a circular firing squad, trashing our own and refusing unity.

I can recall being at the Democratic Leadership Council’s National Conversation in Philadelphia in 2003, sitting in breakout sessions that were more like group therapy, with everyone leaving more frustrated than when the session started. We had brainstorming luncheons designed to define our core principles (a group shouldn’t be meeting to decide what it’s going to stand for). Mark Penn presented a PowerPoint explaining that the Democratic Party was on its deathbed, but of course presented no ideas on how to correct it.

We were completely lost. Who were our leaders? Who should we be listening to? Was it Michael Moore? Al Franken? Howard Dean?

After he won re-election in 2004, but watched as his party’s leader was defeated, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) said, “We have lost the ability to connect with people's value systems and we're going to have to work to get that back."

That sounds an awful lot like RNC Chairman Michael Steele. But imagine if, after 2004, we actually had let Michael Moore become the guiding force of the Democratic Party, do you think we’d have the White House, huge majorities in both houses of Congress, and control of a majority of state houses? I doubt it. While I feel for anyone who would ever have to be trapped in an elevator with those two, the difference between Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh is that Moore actually had some ideas. Limbaugh just has hatred. The Republican Party can’t shout and scare their way out of this problem. But in following Rush Limbaugh, that’s exactly what they’re doing.

My point is, I know exactly where the Republicans are right now. I’ve been in that wilderness, and the path out admittedly isn’t very clear. We likely only found it because of two people: George W. Bush and Barack Obama. That, and we got very, very lucky – which, unfortunately, was mostly at the expense of others: the residents of New Orleans, soldiers in Iraq, the middle class, and at least a few Congressional pages. And if the economy does not improve by 2012, the GOP may find the same fate, but that’d be a short-term fix for their party, and if we’ve learned anything from the past decade, I would hope it is, in part, that short-term fixes have long-term consequences.

But, alas, the Republican Party doesn’t learn. They just continue to shout.

Partisanship, circa 1933

I wrote a post the other day about the lack of partisan aggressiveness on the part of Congressional Democrats. So I decided to take a look back at the period in history to which 2009 is so often compared. During the 72nd Congress of the United States, which met from 1931-1933, the first elected since the 1929 stock market crash and the last before the election of FDR, Congress was as evenly divided along partisan lines as possible. The Senate had 48 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 1 Farmer-Laborer, placing control with the Republicans by 1 vote. In the House, the breakdown was an even 217-217 for Democrats and Republicans and 1 Farmer-Laborer, with the Democrats narrowly in control as a result of some strange deaths and special elections. Does this sound familiar, the country and the Congress being so evenly divided?

Jump forward to 1933. Franklin D. Roosevelt has been elected president, marking a sweeping change from the Hoover administration and 8 years of Republicans in the White House. The 73rd Congress is widely considered to be one of the most productive in our nation's history, rapidly enacting broad-reaching New Deal legislation. With the new Democratic president in office, was the Congress still evenly divided? Far from it. Democrats held 59 seats in the Senate (sound familiar?) and a whopping 317 seats in the House of Representatives. With the exception of a few Congresses, the Democrats would have a tight grip on Congress for nearly the remainder of the 20th Century. When the New Deal was launched, the Democrats aggressively pushed for what they and Roosevelt wanted - and got it, without question. That was good for the country and good for the party. One difference between the 73rd and the 111th Congresses that must be noted was the level of support that the Republican minority gave to the New Deal programs. Senate Minority Leader Charles McNary was criticized from some Republican leaders for never scolding GOP senators who voted for New Deal legislation. That is a far cry from today's Republican party.

My point, once again, is that the Democrats are overwhelming in charge, and it's time to start showing it, to start exercising that legislative muscle. If we truly believe that our progressive ideas will be good for the country, there is no reason we should not push forward with them and enact them into law, with or without Republican support. The country doesn't give a damn about the partisan bickering of the recent past, they are looking for action. The Democrats can do themselves some good by doing what they want, because right now, that happens to also be what is right. It's a win-win.

Elections Have Consequences

I need to vent for a moment. This has been lingering since the transition began. I am a Democrat. I am proud to be a Democrat and proud to represent the 130,000 Democrats in York County, Pennsylvania. I am also both particularly pleased and proud that my party won a commanding victory in the 2008 elections. A solid mandate for a very popular president, sizable gains in the House, and a nearly filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

So why is it that, of late, having a "D" next to one's name seems to be a negative? I'm not saying that it's become a scarlet letter; it's not like having an "R" next to your name in the past two election cycles, but our leadership seems to be forgetting that while bipartisanship is a nice thing to talk about during the State of the Union, Americans actually like partisanship; they just dislike the partisan bickering.

There is no reason that John Boehner or Eric Cantor should be having as large a role and presence in the recent debates as they have. Why should what Boehner thinks even matter? They lead the party that Americans threw out four months ago, under the impression that by electing Democrats to run the country, oh I don't know, maybe the country would be run by the Democrats.

Asserting too much power and completely shutting the other side out, to be sure, is dangerous. But we don't have to pretend like this is a 50-50 country at the moment. We, the Democrats, won. We are in charge. We are supposed to be getting what we want. And that's not partisanship for the sake of being partisan, that's doing what the voters asked for when they went to the polls on November 4th.

The GOP is responsible for the terrible mess that we're in; the American people won't mind if the opinion of GOP leaders matters substantially less. After all, elections have consequences.

Castro has a blog?

On Sunday, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro wrote a column in the national newspaper, part of a recurring segment called "Reflections of Fidel" in which he goes on a deranged stream-of-consciousness rant about the name "Rahm Emanuel." Yes, as in the White House Chief of Staff. And it's not a political attack on the second most powerful man in Washington, it's just a crazy analysis of Rahm's name.

Reflections of Fidel: Rahm Emanuel

Where does it come from? I wondered. Over and over, the name came to mind of the brilliant German thinker, Immanuel Kant, who together with Aristotle and Plato, formed a trio of philosophers that have most influenced human thinking. Doubtless he was not very far, as I discovered later, from the philosophy of the man closest to the current president of the United States, Barack Obama.

An hour well spent

In my post from last night, I commented on how President Obama's press conference last night was long. Really long. And shortly after I posted it, I got thinking about how it's both appropriate and important that it lasted as long as it did. The country is in a very serious crisis and the American people need to be engaged and aware in a way unlike anything most of us are accustomed to. We can take an hour out of our lives to sit and carefully listen to the president of the United States explain the situation and answer questions about it.

It's in many ways symbolic of what got us into this mess. For example, last night at 8 pm eastern, millions of Americans were missing out on favorite television shows, such as The Bachelor, because the President was speaking. During the '90s and much of the current decade, our self-involvement and our mutual carelessness said it was more important to spend an hour watching reality television than taking the time to get a grip on our reality by way of a national leader.

And why shouldn't it have been? During the Clinton administration, Americans were doing very well economically, the government was balancing its budget and American troops were out of harms way...what could the president have to say that is so important? And then during the Bush administration, when things were suddenly serious again, with wars raging and corruption rampant, we had a president who hated the idea of a press conference almost as much as the American people hate Bernie Madoff. We got nothing important out of his press conferences or speeches, so why listen? Well, those days are over, and it's time to start listening - really listening - to what our leaders have to say.

The American people may not always like or agree with what President Obama has to say, but you have got to give the man one thing - no answer last night was intentionally misleading. The Bush years (and yes, also the Clinton years) were a game of avoiding giving a straight answer to a reporter's question. President Obama last night actually answered the questions. And answered, and answered, and answered. But we needed answers, and we needed really long ones, because this crisis will be longer if we insist on the evasive, short answers.

The Hour Long Press Conference

The President just concluded his first prime-time press conference since taking office, and it's a startling contrast to the pressers of the past 8 years. It was clear, thoughtful, honest, articulate...just great overall. It was also very, very long. He spent 57 minutes on the air, during prime time. I bet the networks were thrilled. But it was as close to a home run of a sales pitch as one could hope for. If any American watching tonight was undecided about the stimulus or confused about the economic situation, the Professor-President went to great lengths to change that.

His answer below is the argument that the filter of the news media has prevented from being fully articulated, and it's a compelling argument for not just the stimulus, but other crucial goals of this administration:

This is another concern that I've had in some of the arguments that I'm hearing. When people suggest that what a waste of money to make federal buildings more energy-efficient -- why would that be a waste of money? We're creating jobs immediately by retrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans' homes, as was called for in the package. So that right there creates economic stimulus, and we are saving taxpayers, when it comes to federal buildings, potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they will see more money in their pockets. And we're reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make that kind of investment?

The same applies when it comes to information technologies and health care. We know that health care is crippling businesses and making us less competitive, as well as breaking the banks of families all across America. And part of the reason is we've got the most inefficient health care system imaginable. We're still using paper. We're -- we're still filing things in triplicate. Nurses can't read the prescriptions that doctors -- that doctors have written out. Why wouldn't we want to put that on an -- put that on an electronic medical record that will reduce error rates, reduce our long-term cost of health care, and create jobs right now?

Education, yet another example. The suggestion is, why should the federal government be involved in school construction? Well, I visited a school down in South Carolina that was built in the 1850s. Kids are still learning in that school -- as best they can. When the -- when the railroad -- when the -- it's right next to a railroad, and when the train runs by the whole building shakes and the teacher has to stop teaching for a while. The -- the auditorium is completely broken down and they can't use it. So why wouldn't we want to build state-of-the-art schools with science labs that are teaching our kids the skills they need for the 21st century, that will enhance our economy and, by the way, right now will create jobs?

And this answer was possibly the clearest explanation I have heard from anyone as to how we ended up in the financial mess we're in today. I imagine a lot of Americans watching tonight had an "a-ha!" moment as this particular professor - the President - just had a breakthrough with his students:

Well, first of all, I don't think it's accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What got us into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild risks with other people's monies, based on shaky assets. And because of the enormous leverage, where they had $1 worth of assets and they were betting $30 on that $1, what we had was a crisis in the financial system.

That led to a contraction of credit, which in turn meant businesses couldn't make payroll or make inventories, which meant that everybody became uncertain about the future of the economy.

So people started making decisions accordingly, reducing investments, initiating layoffs, which in turn made things worse.

More tomorrow...

How Washington Changes People

As a disclaimer (and I think it should go without saying) I like Tom Daschle, I respect Tom Daschle, I'm proud to know Tom Daschle. This ad, however, which recently resurfaced from Senator Daschle's 1986 re-election campaign, in which he boasts of driving a beat up car to the Capitol. Of course, Senator Daschle saw his nomination for HHS Secretary slip away as a result of unpaid taxes on a car and driver here in Washington. It's not a dig at Tom Daschle, but just a great piece of irony and an evidence of how Washington truly does change people. (This was aired on the global edition of the Daily Show, which airs on CNN - it may have also aired in the U.S.)

"The writer is president of the United States"

The President published the following op-ed in this morning's Washington Post


What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403174.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

"I screwed up."

Such a simple sentence, yet so difficult for every president that preceded him.  Imagine if President Bush had been able to admit that every once in a while?

Daschle's out

Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) has just withdrawn his pending nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.  This is an unfortunate turn of events for a smart, dedicated man who could have been a strong leader on  universal health care; additionally, Tom has been a dedicated public servant and is a honest man who clearly made an error that ended up hurting him.

With this I have a question and a proposal.

1) Will Senator Daschle be leaving his position as Director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform? (Did he officially take that job yet?...It's not Senate confirmable).

2) Nominate Howard Dean.

Former Gov. Howard Dean, (D-VT), is superbly qualified to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, and his appointment would be embraced politically.  Quite honestly, after an impressive performance as Chairman of the DNC, Governor Dean deserves a position, and HHS Secretary is a great fit.  Gov. Dean is a physician who was an early leader in the health care debate, enacting legislation while governor that made Vermont the first state to guarantee health insurance for all children under age 18.  He proved over the past 4 years that he knows how to manage a large organization, think innovatively, and put up a tough political fight.   One major problem:  Dean and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, don't, uh, exactly like each other.  But I think Rahm could be willing to put that aside.  After all, grown ups are running the White House again.

Brooks: Ward 3 Morality

David Brooks has a great piece in this morning's New York Times :

Ward 3 Morality

"For those who don’t know, Ward Three is a section of Northwest Washington, D.C., where many Democratic staffers, regulators, journalists, lawyers, Obama aides and senior civil servants live. Thanks to recent and coming bailouts and interventions, the people in Ward Three run the banks and many major industries. Through this power, they get to insert themselves into the intricacies of upscale life, influencing when private jets can be flown, when friends can lend each other their limousines and at what golf resorts corporate learning retreats can be held."

Daschle's glasses

With the news that former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, failed to pay over $120,000 in taxes since leaving the Senate, there's been a bit of an uproar in Washington. Leader Daschle is meeting in closed session with the Senate Finance Committee today, and some believe this could actually derail his nomination. But aren't we all ignoring the bigger faux pas? Mr. Daschle's red glasses.

Who's protecting Hillary?

I got to thinking the other day: who is in charge of protecting Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton? The Secretary of State is protected by special agents of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security within the State Department. However, as a former first lady, Mrs. Clinton is entitled to lifetime protection by the U.S. Secret Service. I imagine this poses a bit of a turf war between the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, deciding who it's protecting - the Secretary of State or the former First Lady?

Senator ? (D-NH)

As is now old news at this point, the President is expected tomorrow to name Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Budget Committee, as his nominee for Secretary of Commerce. More then adding to the bipartisanship of the Obama cabinet in a critical cabinet post during this economic crisis, this is a move of either political brilliance or just simple math. Either way, I'm surprised it took us this long to come up with the idea. Gregg would obviously vacate his Senate seat, leaving it up to yet another governor to appoint a replacement. (This whole governors-naming-senators thing has been fun...why let it stop?) The governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, is a Democrat. If Gov. Lynch were to appoint a Democrat (and if the Senate seats Al Franken (D-MN) who has been certified the winner) the Democrats will have 60 votes in the U.S. Senate, also known as a filibuster-proof majority. (Assuming you count Joe Lieberman, and feel free not to count him.) Meaning we could do pretty much whatever we wanted. The Republican party would be utterly obsolete for two years. Granted, that could get very dangerous and end up hurting the party in the long run. But man, those would be a great two years, wouldn't they? Maybe. If we had money to spend and could focus on more of our social and civil rights priorities, but whether it's 59 Democrats or 60, it's still going to be the economy, the economy, the economy, with any time left over going to Iraq. That, and Senator Gregg may have a caveat (according to the Post): he'll only resign if Gov. Lynch appoints a Republican - likely J. Bonnie Newman. I guess we'll see tomorrow.

The Oval Office: Locker room experience?

Former White House Chief of Staff under President Bush, Andrew Card, recently said the following on a right-wing talk show:

I found that Ronald Reagan and both President Bushes treated the Oval Office with tremendous respect. They treated the Office of the Presidency with tremendous respect. And some of that respect was reflected in how they expected people to behave, how they expected them to dress when they walked into the symbol of freedom for the world, the Oval Office. And yes, I'm disappointed to see the casual, laissez faire, short sleeves, no shirt and tie, no jacket, kind of locker room experience that seems to be taking place in this White House and the Oval Office.

First of all, the President and his aides were photographed in the Oval wearing shirts and ties, not cleats and gym shorts. They haven't turned the place into Animal House. What they have done is understood that respect for the Oval Office - and more importantly, for the Office of the President - is shown through the mature, lawful and honest exercising of the duties entrusted to it. President Bush may have required a suit jacket, but maybe he should have required a copy of the Constitution instead.

I applaud Michael Phelps

Towson's own Michael Phelps, the 14-time Olympic gold medalist, was photographed recently taking a bong hit at the University of South Carolina (go Camecocks!). And for that, I dislike you a little less; although people who went to high school with you have said you get loud, annoying, and obnoxiously cocky when you're high.

Blago's Lost It

As the Illinois State Senate proceeds with Day 2 of the impeachment trial of Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D? - Crazytown), Blago himself is nowhere near the trial that will claim his job and career by the end of the week. The governor has been in New York, appearing on just about every television show possible, from Good Morning America to Larry King to The View. Watching this carnival sideshow yesterday, I truly began to feel sorry for the man.

I never knew Rod Blagojevich to be a particularly normal man; he was never anything short of weird in my interactions with him, but up until his arrest I never pegged him as completely delusional. He is, and it's sad. On The View yesterday I watched a very sick man who has lost any grip on reality, and I watched a man who has had a rather successful career and who has a great deal of talent throw everything away (not that he had anything left). Much like a sociopath, he seemingly is unable to grasp that he has done anything wrong. In his delusional mind, he's still the governor who was re-elected in 2006.

I can recall last March feeling a strange sort of sympathy as I watched then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) resign. Here was an even brighter man with more talent (and quite honestly, more integrity) who was not only resigning from a job, but letting go of a life spent pursuing a career, and for that I felt genuinely bad for Spitzer, despite the fact that he brought upon his own demise. I don't feel bad for Rod losing his career, I feel bad for him losing his mind.

And somewhere in that very sick head of his, I think he believes that yesterday was the first day of his political comeback. He is a difficult man to read, but all I can possibly surmise may be his motivation is that Blago somehow believes that he will one day be vindicated and return to the political scene and be elected to office once again. That's the only explanation I can come up with, but, then again, I'm looking at the situation as a rational person. Rod Blagojevich has clearly lost all ability to think rationally. And when the Senate removes him from office either tomorrow or Thursday, he'll lose his pension, too.

The Problem with Kirsten Gillibrand

The political left's primary problem with the appointment of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is that she was a congresswoman with a 100% approval rating from the National Rifle Association. Putting such a staunch opponent of gun control in the Senate seat once held by the late Robert F. Kennedy is appalling. And is why Carolyn McCarthy, one of the strongest advocates for tough gun control laws in the Congress (Rep. McCarthy's husband was shot and killed in 1993) is thankfully running for the seat next year.

Blago screwed Caroline

I got to thinking, while indeed I am angry at Caroline Kennedy, bewildered at David Patterson's incompetence and still unsure of what the true story is behind her sudden departure from the political scene, one thing seems certain: if Rod Blagojevich had never tried to sell President Obama's Senate seat (or at least never been caught), Caroline would almost surely be getting sworn in today. If the Blago scandal never happened, there likely would have been no hesitation on the part of the President or Rahm Emanuel to call Gov. Patterson and indicate the desire of the leader of the free world to have Caroline appointed.

Once again, thanks Rod.

When Harry left Chelsy

In some of the most encouraging news in weeks, Harry, Prince of Wales, has broken up with his longtime girlfriend, Chelsy Davy. While the BBC is reporting that the split was "amicable," the glorious fact remains that Prince Harry is on the market. The now-single Harry is 24 years old.

An End to the Bobby Jr. Journey

Well, folks, that was a short-lived draft movement. Two posts below, I discussed how I was starting an effort to encourage Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to run for the U.S. Senate in 2010 against Kristen Gillibrand. A short while ago, Bobby emailed to let me know that while he would love to serve New York in the Senate, he will not be running against an incumbent and wishes Sen. Gillibrand all the best. Certainly, we at Farragut West hope that Bobby does indeed run for some office in the future and, regardless, wish him all the best in his personal and professional life.

From Iowa to the White House

Jessica Gordon, one of my closest friends who was an early activist in Iowa and part of our Team Obama at GW, was featured this week on the CBS Evening News (you know, the program that airs at the same time as Brian Williams' show). It won't let me embed the video, but you can see it by clicking this link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4737014n%3fsource=search_video

RFK Jr. for the U.S. Senate

Today, I have begun an online effort to draft Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to run in 2010 against Sen. Kristen Gillibrand for the United States Senate from New York. Senator Gillibrand has a record strongly endorsed by the National Rifle Association. Bobby's stance in support of strong gun control is deeply rooted in his family.

In 2010, New Yorkers will have the opportunity to elect a new United States Senator, and to continue the work begun by Hillary Rodham Clinton, we need a strong, vocal and effective progressive voice representing the Empire State in the Senate.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the man for our time. He is a courageous attorney, an amazing father, a patriot and a leader. Bobby's dedication to the environment is unparalleled and he would make an excellent United States Senator.

We need our voices to be heard, to let it be known that New Yorkers want and need a true progressive serving them in the United States Senate, to let it be clearly known that we want Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to run for the U.S. Senate.

Show your support for Bobby by joining http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=74893196232&ref=mf
For more information about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., visit: http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/about.html

Random Thought

Have you ever found yourself trying to hate Elizabeth Hasselbeck and just not being able to do it?

Time: Caroline Goes Rogue

Sources close to Senator Edward M. Kennedy tell TIME that his circle — including his immediate family — is furious that his brain cancer is being cited by some in her camp as the reason for her decision to withdraw her name from consideration for the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton in New York.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1873328,00.html

Why, Caroline, why?

Caroline Bouvier Kennedy

Ok, as my reader is well aware, Caroline Kennedy (D-Camelot) called Gov. David Patterson (D-NY) to inform him that she would not like to be considered for the Senate seat vacated a few hours ago by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-Foggy Bottom). To say I am pissed is a gross understatement. If Caroline truly is withdrawing because of concerns over Uncle Teddy's health, then I am not pissed, but gravely concerned myself.

Nevertheless, Caroline is dashing the hopes of the millions like me out there who dreamed of not just another Kennedy in the Senate, but this particular Kennedy. Caroline had in her hands an opportunity to keep the voice of the Kennedy family in the Senate for decades to come. Caroline is someone who could take the honest and courageous stands without fear that she would lose public support. She is for full marriage equality, and we need every proponent of marriage in major office as we can get. (As a side note, in a 1996 interview with a Chicago newspaper, the President stated he was "unequivocally" for gay marriage...).

But if Caroline is dropping out for any reason other than serious concern over her Uncle's health, she should be ashamed of her selfishness. Come to think of it, if Senator Kennedy (D-MA) is that frail, I see that as only more reason for her to pursue this appointment. As he said in 1980, "the dream shall never die.". Caroline could have breathed life into the dream, but she has squashed that opportunity. I so desperately wanted her to seize it - not for herself, but for America.

In the Room

I just had to post this.

The President of the United States

Quick web log post, since I haven't posted in a while, as I've been busy moving to Italy. Yesterday was an amazing day, both personally as well as for the country and the world. Barack Hussein Obama is the president of the United States of America. That still has not fully sunk in.

The mall has cleared out, the parade has ended and the balls are over. In a few moments the President will begin meeting with his economic and national security teams (Question: why isn't Secretary Clinton being included in the national security meeting on Iraq?). Now the real work begins. I'm waiting for the cabinet to be confirmed and to see what executive orders POTUS issues soon. There's going to need to be a lot to reverse what has happened over the past eight years.

Beyond that, the Congress has a lot to get moving on. For those of us on the political left, there is so very much we have been wanting to have accomplished since 1995. Let's start making it happen, folks.

Obama experiencing DC

The President-elect this afternoon stopped by a DC favorite - Ben's Chili Bowl - in the Cardozo neighborhood, with Mayor Adrian Fenty. It's great to see him out with the people and, after not spending much time in town as a Senator, experiencing what a great city Washington is. I hope that once in office he will forge a relationship with District residents.

How do you sleep at night, Gonzo?

People often ask me how I sleep at night. The answer: Ambien and pinot grigio. But I really want an answer to that question from Alberto Gonzales, the former Attorney General who can never seem to recall anything. Well, I meant to discuss this a little over a week ago, but I still recall and I'm still appauled. Late last month, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal defending his record in the Bush administration, Gonzales lamented that "for some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror."

This man has the nerve to call himself a casualty of a war he helped launch. For the record, General, the actual casualties of the war in Iraq, which you seem to believe is part of the war on terror: 4,223 men and women dead; 30, 934 injured. Actual casualties, as in, you know, twenty-year old kids not coming home alive. How dare you compare your suffering to theirs and their families'.

Blagojevich Impeached

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a former client of mine, was impeached today by the Illinois House of Representatives, by a vote of 114-1. First, I was amazed it was not unanimous. Secondly, I think it's important to point out that under the Illinois Constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution, there are no grounds established for impeachment; the House determines what is impeachable, and while I think they should tread very carefully in setting a precedent here (impeaching a man who has not been convicted of anything) I cannot fault their decision. Lastly, Gov. Blagojevich, for the love of god, resign. If you do not resign now you will lose your pension, and then you'll really be in a tough financial situation.

Barack's BlackBerry

I genuinely feel for him on this; I'd be devastated if anyone tried to take away my BlackBerry. Many have tried, unsuccesfully

Speaking with CNBC Wednesday, President-elect Barack Obama explained that he is still fighting to hold onto the device despite the sea of lawyers who have warned him against keeping it.

I'm still clinging to my BlackBerry. They're going to pry it out of my hands.[...]
I don't know that I'll win, but I'm still--I'm still fighting it. And--but here's the point I was making, I guess, is that it's not just the flow of information. I mean, I can get somebody to print out clips for me, and I can read newspapers. What it has to do with is having mechanisms where you are interacting with people who are outside of the White House in a meaningful way. And I've got to look for every opportunity to do that--ways that aren't scripted, ways that aren't controlled, ways where, you know, people aren't just complimenting you or standing up when you enter into a room, ways of staying grounded.

Something to ponder

The Senate took no action to expel then-Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) after he was convicted on 7 felony charges, but would prefer not to seat Roland Burris because he was appointed by a governor who has yet to be indicted. Hmm....

Ann Coulter past her expiration date

As the GOP continues its soul searching in the wake of their recent electoral blowout, there's one "pundit" who has re-emerged at a time when her party needs her least - Ann Coulter. Now, I realize "hate" is a strong word, but I hate Ann Coulter. She has been promoting her new book, Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America, which I'm sure is an enlightening read. For the life in me, I cannot figure out what she could possibly have to say that she did not convey in Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, or How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). These books, and her utter presence on our proverbial political stage is exactly what has been wrong with politics and it hurts the Republican Party, which sometimes does have actual policy ideas to introduce and discuss. In fairness, I would say the same thing about Michael Moore, but at least Moore raises important policy debates, not simply adolescent name-calling. And that, the adolescent name-calling, is exactly what Coulter's books and her media appearances, such as this morning's appearance on Today, offer - they do not contribute anything meaningful to this great republic of ours. They diminish our ability to engage in productive debate. Her visceral approach to politics is precisely what President-elect Obama is referring to when he talks about changing politics as usual, at least in part. I try to not let her get to me, but her ignorant, out-of-touch, outdated and hateful views nonetheless do get to me, as does her irritating voice, her constant need for attention, and sometimes even her clothing. To quote Anderson Cooper in his Presidential Puppy Debate (a must see): get that bitch off the stage.

---

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sweet Caroline

Over the past several weeks, I've been engaged with staff and friends in an ongoing debate over the potential appointment of Caroline Bouvier Kennedy to fill the Senate seat soon to be vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton. I am a staunch supporter of the Kennedy family and, both by extension of that and because of her policy positions and what she will bring to the Senate, strongly support Ms. Kennedy's "bid" to become the junior Senator from New York.

Earlier this week, my good friend and the only person to read this blog, Eshawn Rawlley, posted a lengthy piece on his web log (he does not run a "blog") not so much trashing the idea of Caroline as a Senator, but arguing that she should run in 2010 instead. (He did compare her to Sarah Palin, so you could very well say he was trashing Caroline, but his intentions were otherwise.)

Then, using essentially the same title, Maureen Dowd, who thankfully returned from a mysterious 7 week absence, argued my side of the issue - that Caroline, regardless of her last name - would make an excellent Senator. Her column can be found by clicking here.

I second MoDo's column, which is far better written than anything you'll get from me, but I relayed my thoughts on the matter to Mr. Rawlley in response to what is now his web log post from Monday and include that for you here...

---

First, you've committed what we in my religion regard as a sin, that of blasphemy against the Kennedys.

Comparing Caroline to Sarah Palin, as you seem to have acknowledged, is beyond comparing apples and oranges. Caroline is a smart, educated, poised attorney who understands the world and politics. Sarah Palin is caribou barbie. That, and while they are both important offices, there is a big difference between being a heartbeat away from the presidency and being the junior senator from New York.

Now I will acknowledged that I am biased to the point of probably being blinded by my loyalty to this family. But my loyalty to them stems from something, and those reasons are part of the reasons I want to see her in the Senate so badly.

I do not believe there is much similarity between CK and SP aside from their mutual lack of a Y chromosome. Caroline, it must be said, is far from charismatic. I wish she were, but she's simply not, beyond the intrigue of being America's princess. But more importantly, Caroline is not ambitious...if she were she could have run for major office and won a long time ago. She has never been one to seek out the limelight or to exploit her name or seek power. This goes to the heart of the matter: Why would Caroline Kennedy, at 51, suddenly want to be a United States Senator? Her late uncle had a good answer when he was running for this very seat in 1964, and if you look towards the beginning of that book I gave you (Thurston Clarke's The Last Campaign), it's described in there. Bobby was responding to charges that he was a carpetbagger who simply wanted to use the Senate as a stepping stone to the White House. He responded by turning the answer into a question, asking why would I want this particular job? I don't need the money, he said, I'm already very wealthy. I don't need the title, he said, I'm entitled to be called "General" for life. I don't need the name recognition or celebrity, I'm already one of the most recognizable people in the world. Why then, run for this office? Because there are people out there suffering, there are people who need a strong advocate and he wanted to be that advocate. I think Caroline's reasoning is very much the same. She's probably in this for the most genuine of reasons, more so than Andrew Cuomo or Carolyn Mahoney, etc.

Yes, I desperately want to see another Kennedy in the Senate, now more than ever with the very real prospect that uncle Ted may not be around much longer. But that's not because of her last name, it's because of what that last name means. I want someone who will be an unrelenting liberal, the champion of my causes. Part of my love and respect for the senior Senator from Massachusetts certainly comes from who his brothers were, but it's so much more than that. Who was pushing harder for civil rights for African Americans harder than Ted (and his brothers) before it was the most politically expedient thing to do? Who has been a stronger fighter for the rights of immigrants and job opportunities for Latinos? Who has made their career about fighting, literally until his death, for universal health care as a basic human right? Who came out for gay rights and gay marriage long before most people would even acknowledge it was an issue? It was always Ted Kennedy...and it didn't matter that he wasn't black or wasn't Latino or wasn't poor or didn't need health care or wasn't gay. This is a family that is about standing up for what is right. And Caroline, by all accounts, holds the same views and can exert the same passion and influence. Caroline was opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning, something that can't be said about either Schumer or Clinton, and to me is important. She supports gay marriage, not some half-assed attempt at civil unions, something that can't be said about Schumer or Clinton or most of the Democratic caucus, including the President-elect and Vice President-elect. I want someone in the Senate who will be a strong fighter for gay marriage, especially when Ted is no longer there.

But this is a political decision, so there's certainly political aspects to it. Caroline has an advantage here, too. First, in polling she is the clear favorite of both NY Democrats and NY voters. And you could say that's simply name recognition, but keep in mind she's in a field with Andrew Cuomo, state attorney general and son of a three-term governor with the same memorable last name. She also has the fundraising ability to run two back to back statewide campaigns on very short notice. She can win in 2010 and then again in 2012. That may be the most important consideration, as we can't lose that seat to a Giuliani or Pataki.

As for the idea that she's simply espewing a Palin mentality dressed up as someone who grew up in the White House, I disagree. Caroline is not someone who is trying to pit one faction of America (or New York) against another. She doesn't claim to be just a regular Joe. She's not. She's fucking royalty, but that doesn't mean she can't relate to the average American, and as her uncle has proven, it certainly doesn't mean she can't be their strongest advocate.

As for the meritocracy, America is to a degree a meritocracy, but we've got plenty of people who get far on their last name and work out great. It's not about simply having the name, it's also about what we know that name to mean. Electing someone simply because he was named Bush was a mistake, but I believe being a Kennedy is far better than being a Bush, and Caroline Kennedy is no George W. Bush.

Winning an election might be the smarter thing for her to have tried to do, but she's already too far into this. She wants to be a Senator, and apparently so do many New Yorkers. And I think we need her in the Senate, so I don't really care how she gets there.

The (Soon-to-be) real West Wing opening montage

Replacing Richardson

With the news yesterday that Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) has withdrawn his nomination to be Secretary of Commerce in the Obama administration, this creates a new opportunity for President-elect Obama to appoint a member of the GLBT community to a cabinet position. There are a plethora of openly gay men and women who are heavily experienced in global commerce and economic development. This would go a long way towards healing the rift that Rick Warren created. Former SBA administrator Fred Hochberg appears to be a plausible pick.

Leon Panetta at CIA

My thoughts on Panetta? He's a proven manager, he has substantial experience at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, he is a man of integrity and he has no connection to the debacle that has been the U.S. intelligence community over the past eight years. As White House Chief of Staff, Leon was involved in every major national security situation for three and a half years, sitting in the Situation Room with the DCI. It'll be fine.

The Circus that is Roland Burris

I am by no means pleased that Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) appointed Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate last week. Blago needed to resign last month and he is putting his party in a very difficult position. That said, regardless of the political implications and appearance of the appointment, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) needs to remember that the law trumps the desires of the caucus. Impotent and a joke he may be, but Rod Blagojevich is still the governor of Illinois, and under Illinois law he gets to appoint qualified persons to fill unexpired terms in the U.S. Senate. Roland Burris is clearly missing a few screws, but he has done nothing illegal or improper. His appointment to the Senate is valid, regardless of whether or not Jesse White, the secretary of state in Illinois and a black Democrat, will sign off on it. The Senate has no choice but to seat Roland Burris, and Reid would be wise to avoid a further spectacle, not to mention the accusations of racism, and allow Mr. Burris to enter the chamber to which he was lawfully appointed.