« Begich Pulls Ahead of Stevens In Alaska Vote Count | Home | Ron Klain Will Be Biden's Chief Of Staff As Old Clinton Hands Return To D.C. »

Election Central Morning Roundup

McCain To Campaign In Georgia Senate Race
The former GOP presidential nominee is set to campaign for incumbent GOP Senator Saxby Chambliss in Georgia today. McCain's planned trip raises anew questions about why the GOP appears to be outworking Dems in this race: While a host of high profile Republicans will be stumping in the state, few if any well known Dems are set to campaign there on behalf of Dem challenger Jim Martin, and Barack Obama (who in fairness is kind of busy right now) has not yet said whether he'll visit the state.

Obama In Chicago, Biden Touring VP's Residence With Cheney
Barack Obama is holding private meetings today in Chicago. Joe Biden and his wife Jill are off to the Naval Observatory -- the official residence of the vice president -- to get a guided tour of their new home from the Cheneys at 5:15 p.m. ET.

Palin Addressing Republican Governors
Sarah Palin is set to address the Republican Governors Association conference today, an event that could serve as a 2012 audition for not just herself but other GOP governors in attendance like Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindal. Question of the day: When will the press start paying as much attention to the actual Vice President-Elect -- you know, Joe Biden -- as they are to the Whacka from Alaska?

Iran Blasts Obama As "More Dangerous" Than Bush
The Iranian government is predictably not respnding favorably to Barack Obama's calls for diplomacy. "People who put on a mask of friendship, but with the objective of betrayal, and who enter from the angle of negotiations without preconditions, are more dangerous," said Hossein Taeb, deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Wait, wasn't Iran supposed to be eager for an Obama victory?

Health Care A Non-Starter This Year?
Some pundits are raising the possibility that health care reform just isn't gonna happen this year. The leading assumption right now appears to be that Obama can't afford to invest either the money or the political capital on such an ambitious goal, what with the economic crisis and big, politically fraught foreign policy decisions to make.

Gingrich: The GOP Is Totally Outclassed By Dems
Newt Gingrich, who knows a thing or two about losing power, sums up the current state of the Republicans as follows: "The Republican Party right now is like a midsize college team trying to play in the Super Bowl." If one-party Dem rule delivers, pretty soon the Repubs will be like the Bad News Bears playing in the World Series.


49 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Some pundits are raising the possibility that health care reform just isn't gonna happen this year. The leading assumption right now appears to be that Obama can't afford to invest either the money or the political capital on such an ambitious goal, what with the economic crisis and big, politically fraught foreign policy decisions to make.

BZZZZZT! Thanks for playing!

No way in hell Obama is going to make the same mistake Bill Clinton did and put off getting health care done right away.

Whipping Max Baucus' health care bill through Congress on, say, January 21, will give Obama the cred, momentum and power he needs for those scaaaarrryyy foreign policy decisions the analpundits are so worried about.

user-pic

it's an interesting point. what I'd like to know is whether health care groups will be pressing for immediate reform and how hard they'll press.

user-pic

As others have said ahead of me, the difference between 1993 and 2008 is that nobody cares about the petty shit any more - everyone wants something, ANYTHING, that will end the non-stop economic trainwreck that is American "health care."

Once General Motors admitted that the only thing that will save it is universal health care that takes millions of retirees off its books, it was GAME OVER.

All that's left now is the paperwork.

(Granted, the paperwork is nothing to sniff at, but the debate is over.)

user-pic
nobody cares about the petty shit anymore - everyone wants something, ANYTHING,...

Ding, ding, ding!

Not sure it's gonna happen as fast as you hope, but you're right-on about the details not being a sticking point.

I remember Paul Krugman expressing disappointment over Obama's health-care plan as compared to Hillary's.  Ya know what?  It doesn't matter.  Congress is gonna write the bill, not the President.  If it's close enough, he'll sign it.

user-pic

Fixing health care is a key part in fixing the economy.

user-pic

Indeed, corporations such as GM are collapsing under health care costs. Reform would be a great relief to them.

user-pic

Small businesses struggle with health care costs also, or can't compete for top employees because they can't offer health benefits.

Free-lancing and self-employment would be an option for more people with affordable health care.

user-pic

Now there's a concept. National health care reform will promote entrepreneurialism. For that matter, actual socialized medicine, like they have in the U.K. (and at the VA) would promote entrepreneurialism, though obviously, that's not at the table.

By the way, and I mean this with all due respect, no offense intended, nothing personal: Cowboys suck.

user-pic

Hospitals are also suffering. This has to pass in order to make sure we don't have a meltdown in the health care area in addition to everything else that's suffering.

Health care is a must!

user-pic

Exactly. And "can't afford to invest the political capital"? If not now, when? (

user-pic

I think they will pass SCHIP first, then slowly work on Health care Package as a relief portion to Auto bailout, since it adds 1200 to cost of each auto produced..

user-pic
Some pundits are raising the possibility that health care reform just isn't gonna happen this year. The leading assumption right now appears to be that Obama can't afford to invest either the money or the political capital on such an ambitious goal, what with the economic crisis and big, politically fraught foreign policy decisions to make.

"Yessiree. Because as we all know, Obama can't win because he's too liberal, he'll never get the votes of Hillary supporters, Hispanic voters hate him and don't even get us started on those racist white working class voters.

"And of course we can't have health care reform in an economic crisis because the last thing you can do in tough times is expand the social safety net. Too bad FDR didn't follow this thinking during the Great Depression because then we'd never have had Social Security."

If the pundit class says it can't happen, bet the house it will.

After all, if a cautious, spineless wimp like Max Baucus is ready to move, then you know there will be action.

user-pic

Yeah, I've really reached my limit on stories from the beltway blatherers about all the things Obama can't do. Seems like there's at least a dozen "No He Can't" stories from the oh-so-smart boys and girls in the MSM for every policy proposal he ever made. Evidently, the CW is that he will be completely paralyized, unable able to accomplish anything at all. Unless, of course, dumps all those grand ideas and follows the center-right agenda demanded by the country in the last election.

user-pic
Evidently, the CW is that he will be completely paralyized...

When Gailbraith popularized the expression, conventional wisdom, he was using it in a disdainful, pejorative vein. Very little has changed in that regard.

MSM = CW = intellectual sloth

user-pic

Galbraith

Thanks for the preview. Now, how's about spell check?

user-pic

Dowload the Google Chrome web browser. It will spell check your comments for you.

user-pic

Newt ought to know all right. The R's came to power under Gingrich not by having great ideas, but by having gimmicky ideas (remember that Contract with America thingy?) that they never really believed in. Term limits, balanced budgets, etc. etc. None of them ever went anywhere once the R's took power, leaving them with...nothing. Just the same old tax cut bromide for every problem. Taken with the fervent belief that government didn't work, they set out to make it so, and now we're seeing the results.

That's why they're getting tossed out - they never offered real solutions to real problems and so problems just continued and multiplied under their watch.

user-pic
When will the press start paying as much attention to the actual Vice President-Elect -- you know, Joe Biden -- as they are to the Whacka from Alaska?

"I'm special! So special! I've gotta have some of your attention, give it to me!"

user-pic

Even after making SUCH a spectacle, attention is so delicious that woman cannot take enough. But we've had ENOUGH. I mean, seriously. I bet the ratings of her interviews are much lower than the media organizations (which still think she deserves their air time in the current crisis) hoped for.

user-pic

Hey, its bad enough that Limbaugh misappropriated a riff from "My City Was Gone" from Chrissie for his radio sty without you giving Palin another of her tunes.

user-pic

I know, but it just seems so perfect.

user-pic
Joe Biden and his wife Jill are off to the Naval Observatory -- the official residence of the vice president -- to get a guided tour of their new home from the Cheneys at 5:15 p.m. ET.

But when is the tour of Cheney's Undisclosed Location?

user-pic
When will the press start paying as much attention to the actual Vice President-Elect -- you know, Joe Biden -- as they are to the Whacka from Alaska?

Hopefully, not anytime soon.  Cruisin' under the radar helps ya get more stuff done sooner.

user-pic

I'm about sick of "pundits" and other Republicans trying to set Obama's agenda for him, and I've got a simple two word response to these people--forget you!
They should pass health care reform right along with economic and tax reform. As others have noted, health care and the economy are intertwined. I hope Baucus and Kennedy and Obama just "plow through" that door come January. Obama won't have any more political capital than he does at that time--and I say act fast before the lobbyists have time to ruin everything.

user-pic

An interesting side note...

Exit polls showed that 16% of McCain voters were former Clinton supporters, and half of those would have cast votes for Clinton if she were the nominee.

To sum up McCain would have (post election guessing here) lost by an even bigger margin. I wonder if West Virginia, and Tennessee, and Arkansas of course would have also been added to the democrats column on election night? Those were Hillary strongholds during the primary.

user-pic

Remember, exit polls means only the voters who went to the polls on election day. Those polls have serious defects due to the fact that so many voted ahead of time. That group was often more conservative than people who voted early. There's a lot being said based on those defective polls, just as I figured would happen.

user-pic

What I find more interesting, or I should say satisfying, is that the vocal minority of PUMAS and Hillary supporters, who made the ridiculous argument about Obama not being able to win states that he lost in the primaries, or that most of Hillary's supporters would switch to McCain, were proven very wrong.
We can toss PUMAs on the ash heap of history along with Palin, and Lady Rothschild.

user-pic

Factor in the number of Obama supporters who wouldn't ever vote for Clinton (like me), recalculate and then get back to us.

user-pic

Co-sign and thank you.

Hillary is the one who could not have won - even the economic meltdown wouldn't have helped her.

user-pic

I wouldn't be so sure.

I think that the Democratic party had two excellent candidates in Clinton and Obama. The Republicans had a dreadful bunch, all McCain can say is that he was the best of a bunch of rotten apples.

Obama forced Clinton to sharpen her message and improve her campaign, and vice versa. I think she probably would have kicked McCain's back end as well.

And while I respect Sen. Clinton, I have none for PUMAs.

user-pic

Not to retread on this bullshit but, the only state Hill would have won that Obama wouldn't have is WV and AR. What is that 11 EV's? Now, you can go and take away VA,NC,CO, and maybe even OR to that list if you like. Just saying....

user-pic

Yeah, as usual the pundits are concern trolling away (e.g., "ooh, doesn't having so many Clinton-era hires means he's BETRAYED his promise of change" blah blah).

Obama will get health care done- for one thing, I don't see how there can be any serious organized opposition at this point - everyone from the Chamber of commerce to ... well, everyone agrees we need health care reform. Also, Obama won't make the same ham-handed mistakes that the Clintons did.

I haven't read the details of the Baucus plan but I am partial to my Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden's plan that has been out there for a while. Anyway, I trust Obama to get it done.

user-pic

Letting a plan develop in the Senate, as opposed to some sort of outside committee behind closed doors, I think is a good start. That was definitely one of Clinton's greatest failures.

Work in conjunction with the Senate, which Obama and Biden know well, and there are sure to be Republicans who join in support. I remember Baucus talking about his plan a while back, I thought it sounded pretty good, at least its a start. I'm assuming Kennedy has something as well.

user-pic
Iran Blasts Obama...

... "blah, blah, blah," said Hossein Taeb, deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

So if you go far enough down the chain of command and find some deputy commander shooting his mouth off, you can write a headline that says Iran Blasts Obama???

Does that mean you're OK with any of us commenters speaking authoritatively for TPM Media?

user-pic

The Democratic leadership, SUCH AS IT IS, truly doesn't want what they claim they want---that magical "60" votes.


That is the political truth explaining why Jim Martin gets no help from Obama or from the other power figures among the Democrats.


Of course, the whole notion that they "need" 60 votes in order to prevail is just a crock. Did the Thugs have 60 votes for the last eight years? Hell, no. And yet they got their way every time in the showdowns on important issues, didn't they?


"Congressional Democrats cave in on (fill in the blank.)" You read that over and over again---even when the Democrats "ran the table" in 2006 and re-gained majority control!


Obama is signaling that he will govern pretty much as Clinton did---look at all his ex-Clinton people lined up in the transition team and at the trough---and Clinton made a pretty good example of a kind of "Eisenhower Republican" president.


Which will be an improvement, of course, over the home-grown Mussolinis of the Bush-Cheney years; and federal court nominations may improve distinctly.

But the Reid-Pelosi-Hoyer triumvirate of timidity (or Axis of Idiocy?) is going to have us gnashing our teeth and swearing at every upcoming capitulation to the Thugs. The rehabilitation of that ghastly turncoat Joe Lieberman is the first bitter pill---to be followed by many more. By the time of the mid-term elections, the crest of the Democratic wave will have subsided---dissipated by the DLC.

user-pic
Obama is signaling that he will govern pretty much as Clinton did---look at all his ex-Clinton people lined up in the transition team and at the trough...

Would you like a shot of reality to go with that myopia? If you want some experienced hands who share your political perspective to round out your transition team, and you don't want to use Clinton-era Dems, you're going to have to reanimate the corpses of the Kennedy/Johnson administration (since Clinton tended to rely on Carter's people). Or maybe you want to go back to Truman?

If you want to be pragmatic and intelligent, you use the talent available to you and not worry about the excoriations of anonymous bloggers who know not a whit about either getting elected or running the largest human enterprise in the history of humanity.

user-pic

OK, I'll concede that point, at least partially. For effective government, get those with a track record.

That's what FDR did, didn't he? Got all those Woodrow Wilson re-treads (he was one himself , of course.) Well, actually, no. FDR went both to the private sector and to the academic sector and to state and local governments, as well as to the antecedent Democratic administration. So I think it would be a mistake for Obama to invest too heavily in recycled Clintonites--as a generalization. As a specific point, another commenter has named various smart economists like Krugman, young Galbraith, and others, whose "cell phones aren't ringing." IF OBAMA CAN FORGIVE LIEBERMAN, HE CAN FORGIVE KRUGMAN---who just received which notable award?

Other stuff that I wrote is harder to dispute, being somewhat self-evident. By the way, I don't usually comment anonymously--unlike the vast majority. But I don't know enough about computers to re-negotiate the TPM-specific mysteries and cybernetic hurdles to start over with my realname ... although my identity is clearly known to those who need to know it as well as those whom I'd prefer not to know it. And as absurd as my user-name here is, my attempted analysis is serious. My theory is that Obama has plenty of flatterers; we'll need a popular movement with its own momentum to keep pushing for change.


I voted for Obama because of the federal court appointments; because of Iraq; because of the specter of Palin; because of Thug criminality; because I read his first book; because I heard his 2004 speech; because he's showed that he can win; and because his name like mine starts with an "O" and for many more reasons. I've never voted for a Presidential winner before and I didn't forfeit my right to criticize when I did so.

user-pic

I'm not sure who you're arguing with....I don't see where anyone said you couldn't criticize Obama. I was initially hoping that all the hand-wringing would at least wait until he was sworn in, but I see now that we won't even make it to his first cabinet appointment.

Other stuff that I wrote is harder to dispute, being somewhat self-evident.

I will roundly disagree with you about this. You should never take a lack of reply to a post on a message board as general agreement or disagreement with your position. I just figured that if you were the type to decide 9 days after the election that Obama's administration and the new congress is DOOOOOOOOOOOOMED....well then, what could anyone possibly say to convince you otherwise?

user-pic

I was arguing with, or as I prefer, replying to Schmedley. I naturally don't take silence as assent, so please dispute away at some of my other assertions:
1. The notion that 60 seats are necessary to control the Senate is a crock, especially when the Executive branch is controlled by the Dems, too.
2. Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer were the leaders over the past several years when "Democrats cave in" was the constant refrain. But you can add Daschle to the list, too.
3. Lieberman is untrustworthy, and the ease with which he is gaming the Dem leadership and caucus is very telling.

user-pic

Regarding FDR: I suggest that the degree of academics with which Obama has surrounded himself tends to favor your FDR model, although you may hold that the bloom of Clintonism has too thoroughly infected them. To wit:

So I think it would be a mistake for Obama to invest too heavily in recycled Clintonites
Why? Are these people incapable of divorcing themselves from Clinton's policies and philosophy, or are they unable to develop their own views and perspects (views and perspects which may well be informed by their experiences with Clinton, thereby enabling them to advise Obama on how to avoid the same mistakes), being such indefatigable Clinton zealots? I hope your palantír is as penetrating as you think it is, given your ability to second-guess Obama so far into the future.

Other stuff that I wrote is harder to dispute, being somewhat self-evident.
Ignoring for the moment your argumentum ad populum (nothing is self evident, particularly anything offered on a web log), why dispute that with which I agree to one extent or another? That notwithstanding, I hesitate to prognosticate about a man who has yet to take an official policy decision or make an official appointment (heavy emphasis on the office part of official). My palantír is still in the shop.
I've never voted for a Presidential winner before and I didn't forfeit my right to criticize when I did so.

I guess I'm older than you: my first vote for president scored with Carter. As for criticising Obama: you might want to wait until the clock starts ticking and the first play is executed; right now, they're still in the locker room.

user-pic

Greg, do you have any insights on what game Bush is playing with the Democrats about the auto industry? Does he really intend to let the auto industry go under? Or does he want more funds from the Congress for the bailout? It makes me sick that Bush is evidently the one giving directions on what to do with all that money. Where is the oversight committee? Why isn't there more transparency?

user-pic

If Obama's mother's fate at the hands of "compassion inc." aka the health care industry, and Teddy Kennedy's presence doesn't push through health care reform from the bottom up and back down again asap nothing else will.

Aside from issue of civility and human decency, health care reform is a matter of both national security and sustainable ecomonic recovery and stability.

Of course, if all else fails, we could ask Raul to send in the Cuban medical teams who do so much good in other third world health care systems,,,,, and embarrass the fools into doing the right thing.

user-pic

Co-sign.

user-pic

Now, at a point of transition, amid massive financial contraction and economic uncertainty, it appears that the non-transparent Big Boys are in the driver's seat. Basic question are being ignored.

J.K. Galbraith, Krugman, Samuelson, Bacevich, await beside their cell phones. Not a chance. Nary a word is heard regards DOJ.

Obama may find himself in a swamp come February and if so, he'd best shift course quick.

user-pic

What Obama should do is CREATE JOBS and go for ENERGY independence with a green economy.

user-pic

With unemployment rising so is the uninsured. Affordable health insurance will be part of the country's recovery.

user-pic

Is it me or does it seem like there is a major debate going on between those who say Obama should go small in cautious and those who say Obama should go large and aggressive. You know Obama and consensus, so I think he will be doing a bit of both.

user-pic

Amazing that dems could be surrounded by a huge crowd all screaming for a change in Health care coverage and one person would stand up and say, "They can't possibly want that" and our dem leaders would say "you're right".

It's like our economic disaster was "created" by Health Ins cos and big pharm in order to claim "We can't afford to pay for social programs or national health care...we just don't have the money...what with the 'bailout' and all".
Disaster capitalism anyone.

It's bullshit and right now, as Josh alludes to, there is a strong mandate for National healthcare ins. AND as the Baucus bill demonstrates, there is a proven efficient low cost program already operating that could easily be expanded to cover everyone while keeping costs lower than what is available now privately and that is Medicare and Medcaid. We cannot allow ANY private ins cos to handle our national healthcare because they will always try to find new ways to increase profits at tax payer expense.

We can get this done if only our leaders will will ignore the corporate lobbyists and follow the will of the people.

This "bailout" has turned into a farce of deception and greed which will only result in what republicans have been hoping to greet Obama with as he assumes office...a great depression. It's like they are following the pre FDR new deal tactics of the '20s.

They are lining up to grab by any means possible as much of the free taxpayer money our Treasurer can throw them. Like sending shrink wrapped hundred dollar bills on pallets into a war zone...it will "mysteriously" disappear without any accountability. If only Obama was in office now to stop this...too many congressional leaders are members of the Money party and will do nothing but act shocked when the money just goes. Some democracy we live in when we the people can only stand back and watch our tax dollars being given to millionaires and billionaires trying to protect their holdings.

user-pic

Newt Gingrich-"...pretty soon the Repubs will be like the Bad News Bears playing in the World Series...."

This is exactly why their party is the sum of all ridiculousness...No policies that haven't been proven failures, just stupid comparisons, religious ideals and condemnations. It's only about winning to prosper themselves and their cronies. They prize winning above all else finding ways to justify purging voter rolls and cheating or whatever it takes just to win. If running Fred Flinstone meant they would win it would be Fred for president. Same with attacking another country or doing false flag operations..all done to gain power to increase their own profits and protect their operations and holdings. Finally they've been outed. We have recently seen the color of their eyes.

The peak of republican hypocrisy was making their motto "Country First" and then picking Sarah Palin for VP. That, in and of itself, defines them completely.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address