i don't know if this has been posted anywhere yet, but it's awesome:

http://superobamaworld.com/

Obama's gonna have one more vote in the Senate:

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens loses re-election bid
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, Associated Press Writer Michael R. Blood, Associated Press Writer 3 mins ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in Senate history, narrowly lost his re-election bid Tuesday, marking the downfall of a pillar of the U.S. Senate and Alaska icon who apparently couldn't survive his conviction on federal corruption charges. His defeat to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich moves Senate Democrats closer to a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.

Stevens' ouster on his 85th birthday marks an abrupt realignment in Alaska politics and will alter the power structure in the Senate, where he has served since the days of the Johnson administration while holding seats on some of the most influential committees in Congress.

The crotchety octogenarian built like a birch sapling likes to encourage comparisons with the Incredible Hulk, but he occupies an outsized place in Alaska history. His involvement in politics dates to the days before Alaska statehood, and he is esteemed for his ability to secure billions of dollars in federal aid for transportation and military projects. The Anchorage airport bears his name; in Alaska, it's simply "Uncle Ted."

Tuesday's tally of just over 24,000 absentee and other ballots gave Begich 146,286, or 47.56 percent, to 143,912, or 46.76 percent, for Stevens.

A recount is possible.

Since we're talking about Nate Silver, check out this interview he just posted. I now have a greater respect for the guy. The interview is with John Ziegler (a documentary filmmaker, apparently) and the primary subject is a questionable poll that Ziegler commissioned from Zogby that's designed to question the intelligence of Obama voters. Silver does a good job of dismantling the guy and by the end Ziegler is being a petulant dick. Pretty hilarious, particularly the last several questions.

NS: What is Barack Obama’s religion?
JZ: You'll have to ask him. But I do know that he never claimed to be a Christian until he met Reverend Wright. And I do believe -- and I’ve never held this against him -- that it would have been highly unlikely for him not to have been registered as a Muslim as a child in Indonsesia but who cares. He did change his website based on that reality –- he was far more ambiguous about that issue on Fight The Smears. I’m an agnostic so I couldn't care less what his religion is. I just care that he lied about it.

NS: When do you think Obama was a Muslim?
JZ: I think he was likely -- registered as a Muslim between the ages of 6 and 10 while he was going to school in Indonesia. It would have been highly unusual for him not to be.

NS: But would you personally consider Obama a Muslim?
JZ: No, because he was a child. We're talking about two totally different things. There's what religion you're born into and there's what religion you become because of your own decisions

NS: Would you consider Obama a Christian?
JZ: You'd have to ask him. There was never any evidence that he was a Christian until he decided to join the church of a racist hate-monger for political purposes.

NS: Would you not believe Barack Obama if he told you he was a Christian?
JZ: Does he believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God who died and was raised from the dead later?

NS: Do you think he’s a believer in Jesus Christ?
JZ: I have no way of knowing that. I don't think there's any evidence that he is, either.

NS: Do you have doubts about Barack Obama's birth certificate?
JZ: I couldn’t care less about that. I accept he was born in Hawaii.

NS: Would you consider yourself well-informed
JZ: I’d consider myself extremely well-informed.

NS: Who are the two senators from South Dakota
JZ: Thune and, uh, Johnson.

NS: Very good. South Carolina?
JZ: Go fuck yourself. I'm done with this interview if you're going to ask me stupid questions like that. Obviously I know who Lindsay Graham is.

NS: Well, since you’re running a website calling people misinformed, I’d like to see if -- there are certain things you’ve said that I would consider misinformed.
JZ: Misinformed? You're a piece of work! You are never going to have the guts to post a representative transcript on your website! I thought you actually ran a legitimate website!

NS: Thank you, have a good day.
JZ: Go fuck yourself.

Full interview here http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/int...r-on-zogby.html

Where exactly does one go to "register" as Muslim?

Mecca, duh.

Do I look like a 6-10 year old from Indonesia to you? How am I supposed to have these answers?

may be slightly off topic, but Colbert was roasted last week at a fundraiser, and some of his rebuttals to the roasters and audience members are pretty funny:

On Dana Perino: "Dana Perino is here, what an honor to be roasted by the spokesman for the president. Dana Perino, wonderful to see you. I always knew Scott McClellan would hatch into something beautiful. When you crawled out of the McClellan cocoon, did you have to devour the shell for nutrients or is he still lurking around someplace? ... I loved it when you told Helen Thomas that the 'Mission Accomplished' banner should have read, 'Mission Accomplished For These Sailors Who Are On This Ship On Their Mission.' I certainly hope you had a banner for that explanation. Do you get sore the next day after shoveling it that hard? I kid, I kid, but no, Dana, you are the one person who I don't mind slamming me on this entire podium, because I know for the last year and a half you haven't meant anything you've said."

On Alan Greenspan: "Alan Greenspan is here, and we're in the middle of a once-in-a-century financial meltdown, so of course the question everyone is asking is, How did Alan Greenspan land Andrea Mitchell? Seriously. Keep kissing him, Andrea, he's going to turn into a prince one of these days."

Daschle - Health & Human Services Secretary

is there a full transcript somewhere?

bridge to nowhere. ha

one level per day, dice. one per day

i neglected to mention that i see a good dose of that lord of the rings kid in silver

the last level has ted steven's internet tubes.

well, i DID check the level titles. geesh. i'm not that disciplined

i suck at this game.

Interesting how the articles are starting to spout up already about how Obama was for "change" and is doing nothing but filling his administration with Clintonians and other Washington insiders. I have no problem with the guy not wanting to repeat Carter and Clinton's mistakes, but this is just the first in what I expect to be a series of questions about how Obama is actually conducting business, given how successful he was in selling people on this being a vote for true change. I'm even seeing people who voted for him on other boards questioning all the Clinton people he's appointing. This should be an interesting balancing act to watch.

There's been one Dem administration in the last 20 years, so naturally if you're looking for people with experience who are Dems they will have worked with the Clintons.

Here's a list of non-Clintonites who have been appointed: Napolitano, Daschle, Gibbs, Axelrod, Jarrett, Pritzker. All told its about 50/50. I'm not crazy about Hillz at SoS, but can live with it. Just keep Rubin and Summers away from the Treasury.

Most of the other 50% are Washington insiders, Democratic Party leadership, etc. No new "fresh blood" that I think many people expected.

bah.

the change is Obama himself. He is the leader and makes the decisions. He is not a product of his advisors like the current president. He wants capable people who can get things done in his administration.

this meme of "where's the change" pisses me off. such bullshit.

Let him be president at least before you start complaining about that shit.

I expected him him to select people like this from the start. 'Obama' himself was the fresh blood, but he had said repeatedly that he would surround himself with very experienced people to assist him in his decision making.

I don't know who would realistically expect a junior senator becoming president to bring in an inexperienced staff and cabinet along with him.

No man, these criticisms are absolutely valid, especially when coupled with the bullshit Obama has been spouting about "Russian aggression", support for Israel, his commitment to continuing the use of Blackwater, and escalating the Afghanistan conflict (just to name a few). The dude may still be worlds better than a McCain/Palin win could have been even in best case scenario but this isn't a good sign considering the kind of "change" this guy was touting.

No reason to panic and get crazy yet, but plenty of reason to be mighty skeptical.

well, thing is, who would he have picked to be in his cabinet that would have constituted "change", yet not be seen as being a cabinet of inexperienced people?

all these were true during the campaign, so hey, if they bothered you that much you shoulda voted for Nader.

Exactly. The people complaining about the cabinet appointees now would be complaining just as loudly about the lack of experience in a "fresh-faced" staff. The choices are either Clintonites, complete unknowns, or Republicans. Care to take a wild stab in the dark at which of those three the loudest critics would prefer?

Q: What do homeless people and Obama have in common?
A: They both ask for change.

tony?

This is precisely the reason many of us were so critical of the hordes of clueless people who loved the guy from the start and wanted "change", but who had absolutely no clue what the guy stood for. Given the way he campaigned, you can't blame people for not wanting to see change. They bought into him so fully that they expect to see some tangible evidence of change. it's the catch-22 of the success of his campaign.

Susan Sarandon may have been one of the few idiots to say something like this in public, but I guarantee plenty of people who voted for Obama took precisely the same logic detour she did in deciding to vote for him:

QUOTE

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black...tion_for_change

well, i still think he's gonna bring about real change from the last 8 years, no matter who is in his cabinet, and that's enough for me

There's already Impeach Obama stuff.

Link.

It's weird that people would ask "where's the change?" though, isn't it? I mean, isn't going republican to democrat change in itself?

Just gotta wait to see what happens right now. People have worked for the Clinton administration, but it's not like workers behave the same way/do the same thing under different bosses. I mean, if I was a writer for Time magazine, I would certainly come in with a different mindset than if I was a writer for ESPN magazine.

God that's an awful analogy. How about if the head is different, the body acts differently?

Whatever. I voted for the guy and I'll give him the same chance as any other president that comes into office. I expect the love and hate for the guy to cool down a bit in the next month as the bitter election moves closer to the back of people's minds. Hopefully people come to their senses on some of the unattainable hopes they have for Obama as well. I heard some guy on the radio say "Now that Barack is president, EVERYBODY will have a job!"(a guy on the street they were interviewing). Hopefully the guy doesn't become too disheartened when the same shit is going on 6 months from now. People are jonzin for a quick fix, and it just doesn't seem possible.

Can someone source the Blackwater claims?

In other news, Politico is reporting that Penny Pritzker turned down the Commerce appt.

Robert Gates is likely to stay on as SecDef.

If only for reasons of symbolism, this is a bad idea.

why? i think it's a great idea

also, obama's always been about getting those who understand the system inside and out working for him. those who know how to get things done. and that's how he is going to bring in the change that he spent the entire campaign season talking about. as we learned with both carter and clinton, change doesn't come without understanding how legislation works. obama on the other hand, understands that you need someone like daschle to carry through reformed health care. daschle knows how capitol hill works. he has relationships with the right lawmakers and aides and he understands what can get passed and what can't. plus he knows how to find the votes. compare that to the clinton health care plan that was put together by a bunch of wonks who completely disregarded the legislative process and you'll see why obama's change isn't just another empty campaign promise.

since election day (and really well before then) obama has been putting together a legislative coalition (which works much like an electoral coalition) so that the great and progressive ideas that he wants to accomplish actually do come to fruition. and his staff reflects that. which is great news for those of us who would like to see his great message of change actually work.

I don't like the optics of a Republican in charge of defense, but I think this is a good idea given the situation in Iraq. Gates is in the best position to manage the withdrawal and has the respect of the military leadership. He'll likely step down after that.

I'll buy that.

In most cases, yes. But given Obamamania, no. He didn't just campaign on the idea that we needed change from Bush, he also campaigned on the idea that we needed change from Washington insiders and politics as usual. Particularly early on, that was mainly his focus. That's what drew a ton of people to him. I think it's only natural for some of them to look at the early (and I realize it's very early) decisions he's making and saying, "Wait, what's up with all the familiar names of Washington insiders?"

Well, my impression was more that it was policy change he was campaigning for, and he's stacking his staff full of effective people who will help actuate this type of change. I mean, really, did we want to see a bunch of Washington outsiders on Obama's staff? I sure as hell didn't. With Obama already being criticized for his lack of experience, you sure as hell wouldn't want to surround yourself with an inexperienced staff.

Second, one can argue that his extending the olive branch to bitter rival Hillary Clinton (if indeed true) with a cabinet position, as well as going easy on Joe Lieberman is a change from the typical retaliatory politics one is used to seeing in Washington.

Now, to be perfectly honest, I don't really expect that much change from Obama, but from the way Obama's staff and administration is shaping up, I don't see that as direct evidence against change, either. If my goal were policy and attitude change, I don't think I would have done anything much differently than Obama is doing now.

it's natural, but it's unrealistic. CHANGING POLITICS AS USUAL is a policy thing and a process thing. at this point he just doing staffing. His staff will be pursuing his agenda. If he is a good leader, he can take people who used to do things one way and teach them to do things a new way. Hopefully this will occur.

That said, nearly every politician pushes some sort of change meme and rarely is there much change. I wouldn't expect Obama to be THAT different. I'm hopeful things will change, but hey politics will always be a tough arena, and even Obama's not going to change that, especially overnight.

But what good will it do for him to have a mandate and all this charisma if he staffs his cabinet with outsiders who alienate everyone Obama needs in Congress and the various beaurocracies if he's to get anything done?

it's important to remember that his campaign staff didn't come from nowhere. quite a few of them came from the failed presidential bids of edwards (2004) and gephardt as well as a whole lot from daschle. and with his leadership he was able to make them into what was arguably the best ran campaign in recent history.

The latest I read was that she wasn't even asked, according to CNN.

I read she had business dealings that would have been inappropriate in the vetting process.

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaP...&m=97260133

apologies if this is already posted today - link to npr audio of story on Neapolitano's possible Homeland Security appointment.

I recognize the catch-22 Obama is in, and why practically speaking, he can't just bring a bunch of newbies into his administration. But he knew that going into the campaign, and yet made a specific pitch that he would bring change to Washington. I'm just making an observation that already, he's starting to feel the heat for the decisions he's making -realistic or not.

Here are the opening lines from several articles about recent appointment leaks:

Exactly. Sorry, Haters.

PH, part of what you're referencing is that "Washington insider" was framed by the GOP as a de facto negative during the campaign. Which was all the more ironic inasmuch as McCain was the consummate elitist. In my mind, "Washington insider" only becomes a negative if it plays out as business-as-usual. It's way too soon to tell but as elco says, these old 'insiders' will be expected to work Obama's agenda.

Having Biden as VP in place of Cheney will be a significant and welcome change.



Right. If he restores habeas corpus, stops torture/waterboarding and gets us a decent timetable for pulling out of Iraq, I'll be happy.

you can have all that. I'd rather he fix the economy.