On the heels of the AK senate victory it doesn't hurt congratulating Nate Silver again. He was almost spot on even when Stevens was leading nearly 3,000 votes.

That man is a genius.

Do you think that Bill Clinton is going to Atlanta to help insure that his wife gets the SOS job? And the fact that he will submit all of his business activity to an ethics panal. That is prudent of him.

David Broder against Hillary at State:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802882.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I was already almost full behind Obama's decision to pick her to run Foggy Bottom. This Broder column sealed the deal for me. It would be shocking to see Broder against this very Broder-like move by Obama until you realize the one overriding reason why he's against it - he hates Bill Clinton.

So if Hillary takes SoS, she will face severe ethical issues about trying to raise money to pay off her campaign debt.

Does Bill Clinton face similar restrictions? Could he raise funds to pay off her debt if she takes SoS? I frankly do not understand the details of the problem, but it looks to me as though if she takes SoS it might cost her the money she loaned her campaign (about $5 million, wasn't it?)as well as costing those who loaned her funds.

I expect McCain will lose in 2010. Things have changed in Arizona and after his dismal sleazy presidential campaign and pathetic judgment demonstration by picking Palin, the angry war cheerleader is done. The real John McCain has been exposed and can no longer get away with that "maverick" bullshit.

I have realized I've been duped once again into believing there would be accountability for the corruption of the Bush administration including putting people like Karl Rove in prison. The fact that their corruption will not continue is all the dems will do. The damage done by the politization of the DoJ (putting Siegelman in chains, approving torture and illegal spying, etc.) will not be addressed.

Nor will many of the changes promised be accomplished as the dems allow the treasury to pass out the tax payer money to enrich the wealthy. I have to keep in mind (as evidenced by AT&T paying for the dem convention) that our party leaders belong to a third party known as the Money Party and all legislation goes to protecting their holdings and their interests.

We voted in the dem party and a dem president and all they can say is they want to cater to republicans and promote bipartisanship when that is all they've done for the past 8yrs. Whatever Bush asked for, the dems agreed to. The only time Bush was ever challenged was by his own party.

The country has moved left and both parties spend all their time demonizing "the left". Now, once again, we are being told this is not what we really voted for. That we should have a smooth transition so as to not upset the boat or the established way of business ...when this is exactly what we voted to change and were expecting a complete disruption of the status quo. Instead we get Steny Hoyer and Nacy Pelosi claiming the people didn't really want a complete change they want us to continue doing what we've been doing, governing center right and not upsetting business as usual. These people are incapable of changing themselves much less envisioning a changed America. Sometimes wisdom comes with age but for most it's merely complacency. When we said "we are the change we are looking for" apparently it didn't include our leaders. At least we have a well motivated and honest leader now...I hope he continues to listen.