Christmas Eve Cheer!

Being a Jew is difficult right now. The office is pretty slow, but us Jews are here carrying the banner. That got me thinking, I should write a blog post about nothing. AND EVERYTHING

I'll start by saying that the blog might shut down for a few days. It'll be back up after New Years with a new name, a new focus, and probably a new look. I know that the swarms (thousands of people: White, Black, Muslim, Jew, Dog, Cat) will be awaiting its renewal. Just sit tight, don't freak out, and chillax.

Question of the day: "Mom, if Santa and Judah the Maccabee got in a fight, who would win?" Lisabu, please answer quickly.

The article linked above is odd. If the author wasn't named Lithwick, I might be offended. It includes gems like "the Grinch is a fundamentally Jewish show because the Grinch himself is a fundamentally Jewish character. I got one e-mail that concluded, 'Who is more of a Grinch than a grumpy old Jew?' And a Jew with a heart problem no less?" Also, apparently the Grinch "is the ultimate fantasy for a Jewish kid" with "Santa/tree/carols envy" because "Christmas, canceled."

It sounds to me like the author has Christian envy. Jeffrey Goldberg has this right. Most Jews don't care about Christmas. In fact, its just a day in the year (hence my being in the office on this slow day). (And this negates the fact that Hannukah is not an important holiday at all, inflated only so that Jewish kids can compare with their Christian counterparts.)

BUT THATS BESIDES THE POINT! I don't feel the need to define my December 25 in opposition to Christmas. In fact, i think that Christmas is an incredible holiday that often brings out the best in people. In that sense, its nice that secular Christmas is a default holiday for most Americans.

But all those thoughts aside, this is the oddest part of that Slate article linked above:

Jewish women who as children were whisked away to Jewish vacation resorts in Florida marry Jewish men who hung Hanukkah stockings next to a Hanukkah bush, alongside the plate of gefilte fish they'd left out for Santa.

...Ok. Tuki has a serious complaint. This post is too cohesive, not random enough. Wanna see some cute pictures of her? I don't care if you do or if you don't! I get to do whatever I want!


Hey guess what! I get to see these people tomorrow!

And this one soon!

Want to see a funny site? Its called Fuck you Penguin. It "tells cute animals whats what." Check it out.

Well thats enough for now. Peace out. Holiday cheer. Bring it on.

Dollmania

I don't have much to say about this post by Ta-Nehisi Coates in the Atlantic, except that I LOLed out loud when I saw it.

Please, in case you were considering it, don't get me a doll for the Holidays. Unless, of course, its this one:


And don't get me the white version:

From Sarah: "Put that on your blog and smoke it"

Obama Will Set VP's Role, Biden is not Cheney

Josh Marshall of TPM wrote today that the Joe Biden model of the Vice Presidency could be closer to the Dick Cheney model than we might hope. It’s an interesting argument based largely on the fact that Joe Biden is old enough that he would likely not run for President in 2016 (he would be 74) and therefore does not have to weigh the politics of extensive VP involvement, just as Cheney did not.

Vice President Cheney's clout within the Bush administration is heavily tied to the fact that the he early -- and quite credibly because of his medical history -- disavowed any plans to seek the presidency in his own right. We're in the midst of a four decade trend toward more and more powerful and influential vice-presidents (in the sense of clout not constitutional prerogative). But the big brake on the veep's role in decision-making has always been the fact that everyone else who wants to be president someday has a strong interest in keeping his power in check.

But I think that Biden will only have as much power as President-elect Obama allows. The Obama machine has been incredibly well oiled since it began more than two years ago and I don't think this will change after Obama is inaugurated. From what I can tell, Cheney was so involved in the Bush presidency because Bush wanted and needed that. He simply did not have the knowledge and political ability to do it by himself.

But despite his inexperience, Obama is a competent leader and skilled politician. I don’t see Biden making a play for extensive powers without Obama squashing it. But if Obama wants an involved VP, then it will happen.

There are a few areas in which Obama could use the Vice President’s help. First, there is foreign policy, Biden’s strong suit. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the choice of Biden as VP was a clear sign that Obama would look to his running mate for support on issues of national security and international diplomacy. But some early Obama cabinet picks shows that he would also look elsewhere for help. This was especially apparent in his choice for Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, another high profile foreign relations authority.

It’s still early to predict what Biden’s role will be in the White House. But I predict that Obama will set the tone for that role and Biden, whether he wants to or not, will have to obey.

NYTimes on VPs

Always a (Jewish) Bridesmaid...

Matt Yglesias:

It seems Barack Obama is giving us a cabinet with no Jewish members. Plenty of Jews in non-cabinet top spots (Axelrod, Summers, Orszag) so I guess we’ll have to just run things from behind the scenes. I think that was also the case at the beginning of the Dubya administration, though now we have Chertoff. One related issue is whether the country will ever again see a non-Jewish Fed Chair.

UPDATE: And of course you can add Rahm to the list of influential, but not in the cabinet, Jews. Basically, it’s a chock full ‘o Jews White House staff and a non-Jewish cabinet.

Elections in Ghana Promise Change and Inspire Hope

Before Ghana’s December 7 election, there was much discussion about the importance of a peaceful electoral process for the West African coastal country and the entire African continent.

The first round of the election went off without a hitch. In fact, 70% of eligible voters turned out to cast a vote for one of the six Presidential contenders. But when all the votes were tallied, Nana Akufo-Addo of the National Progress Party (NPP) received 49.3% of the vote, and John Atta Mills of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) took 47.8% of the vote. Since more than 50% is required to win the Presidency, these candidates will face off in the December 28 runoff election.

One reaction to the close election stands out. Bridget, a 39 year-old General Manager from Accra said,

I am feeling relaxed because over the weekend there were no incidents, there was nothing to make me worry and there were also a lot of checks and balances in place to ensure everything went well.

The threat of violence was a legitimate concern in Ghana, even as Africa’s first Independent Democracy. In the past year, the world was shocked by electoral violence in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria. Ghana’s peaceful election ensures that it will remain a political leader for the continent that many Americans still view as a catastrophe zone.

For the past eight years, John Kufuor, the leader of the NPP, ruled as Ghana’s first democratically elected President since 1979. In that year, Flight Lieutenant Jerry John Rawlings seized power from the corrupt government and peacefully handed power to Dr. Hilla Limann. But in 1981, Rawlings rose again to overthrow Limann and consolidate his power as Ghana’s Head of State. In 1993, Rawlings changed his title to President and was re-elected twice in semi-democratic elections.

Kufuor beat Rawlings in the 2000 election and has served two terms, the maximum allowed by Ghana’s Constitution. Kufuor has vowed to peacefully hand over the Presidency to Akufo-Addo or Mills, whoever wins the runoff. This indicates Ghana's incredible transformation and status as a Democratic power in Africa.

After Ghana’s Independence in 1957, decolonization spread quickly throughout the continent. Between 1957 and 1965, almost thirty African countries declared independence from a colonial power. If the December 28 runoff is as successful as the first round, then Ghana could inspire another wave of reform through legitimate and peaceful elections.

Is Warren Worth It?

I wrote a few weeks ago about the media’s overblown response to Obama’s centrist cabinet appointments. The media seemed to think that liberals were furious at Obama, when they were maybe peeved or disappointed. Many liberals understand Obama’s need to appoint people with experience who appeal to a wide cross section of the population in order to maximize his political capital.

But Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration on January 20 is a symbolic blow to women, gays and the pro-choice and pro-gay liberals who support them.

It’s clear Warren was chosen in an attempt to bring Christians (and even conservatives) into Obama-mania. And despite the unfortunate message that the choice sends to liberals, I think it is politically shrewd. But the central question is, will Barack Obama gain enough with Christians and conservatives to compensate for the support he will lose from the left?

Powerful liberal organizations like the Human Rights Campaign are decrying this decision as “genuine blow to LGBT Americans.” Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.

Despite the political benefits to Warren giving the invocation, I agree that it is a bad choice that sets the stage for some serious disappointments from Obama on abortion and gay rights. But I’m hoping that that disappointment is only symbolic and restricted to inauguration.

Because when it comes down to it, the Warren choice means nothing. After all, Obama is not the sole decider of who gives the invocation. And it would be much more serious if he had appointed him Secretary of State or Attorney General or as the next Justice to the Supreme Court. But that’s ridiculous and its clearly not going to happen. I trust that Obama’s pandering to Christian conservatives will not spill over into any policy decisions.

In a later Andrew Sullivan post:

I think the choice of Warren is almost certainly designed, in fact, as a unifying move - and it is a signal that Obama has every intention of reaching out to Christianists who have some liberal leanings on poverty, the environment, and heterosexual HIV and AIDS. (Check out the last time Rick Warren reached out to gay people with HIV or AIDS.) I understand where Obama's coming from, and I don't think this is an inherently bad idea. Building such a liberal Christianist coalition is something I saw coming, and sadly see no way to avoid.

Before we will see what the choice of Warren means for the big picture of Obama’s Presidency, Obama will lose some credibility from his base. Long term, I hope that he’ll surround himself with more liberals and make some serious progressive policy choices. But when it comes down to it, we knew all along that we were electing a moderate.

UPDATE - OBAMA ON WARREN

Time Person of the Year

The GOP Doomed Detroit. And We Wont Forget

I’m still shocked that the bill granting $15 Billion to bail out Detroit’s Big Three did not pass. And I’m still worried that the failure to protect the jobs of hundreds of thousands of American is an incredible mistake that will make this economic downturn even worse. But I must admit that I understand the opposition’s argument on this issue. Still, that doesn’t mean they’re right.

There is an important truth to the fact that bankruptcy could make the Big Three reevaluate their priorities and resurrect their position in the auto world and eventually re-hire hundreds of thousands of Americans. In the long term, bankruptcy could be just what the doctor ordered to improve the failing automobile industry and get our economy on track.

Also, Newsweek has a very interesting article about the foreign-owned automobile industry picking up steam in the South. These “little eight” companies employ many Southern workers with good wages and benefits. This is likely the reason that Southern Republican Senators voted against saving Detroit’s automobile industry. In a capitalist society, competition is king, and we must let bad companies fail to secure the best product. This will ensure that the economy remains healthy in the long term.

But American families do not think long term. They think about the jobs just lost because the executives of these companies actually thought Americans would continue to buy gas guzzling American hybrids instead of gas-efficient, foreign-made hybrids. They think about how to get a new job in this economy, when most companies are laying people off in crisis and to avoid crisis.

So I’ve got to agree with Bob Shrum. Even if the Republicans had some legitimate reasons to oppose the bailout, those reasons will not be remembered. Instead, we will remember that 20 Senators agreed to give $700 Billion to Wall Street, but refused to give $15 Billion (2% of $700B) to support American workers. And the people laid off will remember that the Republicans are largely responsible.

It’s been a bad year for the Republicans. But they could have moderately saved face by playing the politics to appear the savior of the automobile industry. Instead, they effectively fired the Midwest and will pay the price in 2010 and 2012 unless things start to turn around.

Anyone Else Tired of Blagojevich?

Well if you're not, Chris Cilliza has a terrific post about the GOP's attempts to show a connection between Obama and the scandal-ridden Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Will the Republicans succeed in tainting Obama's reformer image? Or will this newest attempt at slander simply come across as "more of the same"?

Even John McCain thinks the RNC has gone too far.

Obama: Be Bold with Health Care

Barack Obama ran his campaign promising to implement progressive programs and govern with progressive values. One of these programs is an ambitious health care reform package which promises to expand insurance coverage to hundreds of thousands of families and individuals. This admirable goal will be very difficult to achieve. But it is worth the fight.

Bill Clinton made health care reform one of the priorities of his first term. This plan was largely overshadowed by a number of scandals including sexual digressions and strategic mistakes in the President’s first two years. The reforms were also spearheaded by Ira Magaziner, who was largely responsible for their failure. Grasping the political opportunity, Republicans were determined to kill the health care proposal, claiming that it was an overly bureaucratic and inefficient government-run solution to a problem that concerned a small minority of the population. Clinton spent much of his political capital on a health care plan and lived with the consequences when the Republicans took control of the House and Senate in 1994. Timeline

Obama will face similar hurdles when it comes to passing his ambitious health care plan. On Thursday, Robert Dallek argued that President-elect Obama should follow President Lyndon Johnson’s example passing the Voting Rights Act in 1965: “Johnson in a sense sold civil rights to the country as a program of national well being. And that’s what I think needs to be done now with national health care.”

See the video, courtesy of Think Progress:


This is the kind of leadership we need right now on many issues, the most important being health care. The fact is that the majority of the country already has health care insurance. So that population could abandon this priority in favor of other (also necessary) economic recovery programs. In that case, the President needs to step in and fight for universal health care, even if it is not the most popular option. Lyndon Johnson lost the South for the Democrats because of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. But there is no doubt that he took the right stances on important issues. And our country is better off for it. President-elect Obama has the chance to provide similarly effective leadership on health care.

This reminds me of a 2006 Malcolm Gladwell article published in the New Yorker. It discusses an experimental program in Denver, CO dealing with the city’s homelessness problem. The article points out that Denver spends an alarming portion of the budget on health care and shelter services for its homeless and mentally ill population. Since hospitals are required to help all patients, regardless of their insurance status, “the kind of money it would take to solve the homeless problem could well be less than the kind of money it took to ignore it.”

The experimental program targeted the chronically homeless who had a history of injury and costly medical bills picked up by the state. The study found that

“you can house and care for a chronically homeless person for at most fifteen thousand dollars, or about a third of what he or she would cost on the street. The idea is that once the people in the program get stabilized they will find jobs, and start to pick up more and more of their own rent, which would bring someone's annual cost to the program closer to six thousand dollars.”

Clearly there are problems with this model. It favors only a small portion of the city’s homeless and mentally ill population when everyone needs help. And where do you draw the line? Why do some homeless people deserve help and not others?

But the program best serves as a symbol for the benefits of creative governance. In general terms, liberals can support the program because it provides services to an at-risk population, and conservatives can support it because it saved the city a fortune in medical and shelter funds.
So when Obama begins crafting a strategy for health care reform, he should think outside the box. As Dallek suggests, he should not shy away from a fight and he should provide real leadership to pass a health care program that could save the federal government a bundle in the long run and provide health care services to hundreds of thousands of families and individuals who need it the most.

It looks like Obama's newly-announced Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Daschle welcomes the fight and has already embraced a creative approach to the health care problem. Let's hope that desire remains and the Obama Administration makes some serious progress on health care early on.

Basking in Idiocy

Do you remember "Drill Baby Drill?" Against all logic and the advice of almost all energy experts, John McCain stuck to this mantra of "Drill Baby Drill." He even got Obama to say that he'd consider it and many liberals to believe that it was actually necessary to decrease the price of gasoline across the country. Well walking home from work today, I saw a gas sign that read $1.79 for a gallon of unleaded. And as far as I know, we aren't drilling off shore.

So this is just a memory of one of John McCain's stupidest campaign stunts.

The Human Side of Marriage

In Iowa today, the debate rages over the rights of homosexual men and women to marry. Iowa’s Supreme Court is hearing an appeal to a district judge’s decision to declare the state’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional. The Assistant Polk County Attorney Roger Kuhle argued that the decision should be overturned because "fostering same-sex marriage will harm the institution of marriage as we know it. […] It’s not going to happen tomorrow. We’re not going to see any changes tomorrow, next week, next year, in our generation. But you’ve got to look to the future.”

Yes, saying that homosexuals will “harm” marriage is going too far, but as divorce rates and adultery continue to skyrocket, a change in the institution of marriage could be the shot of energy needed to revive the practice.

But where does this definition of the virtuous, unblemished “institution of marriage” come from? Many Americans have an idea that the Bible clearly and succinctly says that men should not marry men and that women should not marry women. And if this law is disobeyed, then the heavens will reign down on the earth in violent fervor… or something like that.

Well that simply is not true, as documented by Lisa Miller of Newsweek in an article urging a religious, pro-family openness to gay marriage. Her argument is based on two truths. First, the Bible is a largely antiquated document, many sections of which have already been debunked by changing historical standards:

The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.

Second, Miller says that the Bible simply does not state explicitly that homosexuals should not marry. Granted, it does not seem thrilled with the idea, but the religious opposition to gay marriage comes primarily from common practice:

Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument). Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice: the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as "the man and the woman." But common practice changes—and for the better, as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.

Surprisingly, an article criticizing fervent opponents to Proposition 8 published in Creators also says that the anti-gay arguments attributed to the Bible are overblown:

The fact is that nowhere in the Bible are homosexuals called "an abomination." And no one, beyond one sick fringe family that has no standing in any religious community, refers to gays as "abominations." On the contrary, religious opponents of same-sex marriage always speak of "hating the sin, not the sinner.

Well, ostracizing homosexuals for the sin of loving who they love still seems pretty far-fetched, but the article supports the point that anti-gay sentiments come more from tradition than from the Bible.

So when it comes to states like Iowa and California, courts and legislatures need to think not about the Bible or antiquated conceptions of marriage and morality. They need to think about what humans need most from their families and friends to be successful. And Miller explains those needs very well:

More basic than theology, though, is human need. We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them. We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and, not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world. We want our children to grow up in stable homes. What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this.

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich in Custody

This is the best succinct rundown I've seen about the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D). It appears that he was hoping to sell Obama's Senate seat for campaign contributions, professional positions for himself and his wife, or cold hard cash.

Great quotes highlighted by Politico:

“Unless I get something real good [for Senate candidate 1], s***, I’ll just send myself, you know what I’m saying?”

...

"the Senate seat 'is a f***ing valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.'"

Will Dems GAIN (!) in 2010?

It has become a cliché of American politics that after two years of a President’s first term, his opposition party will fare extremely well in the midterm elections to take back the Senate, House or both. This happened disastrously in 1994 due to Clinton’s bungling of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and his attempt to pass Universal Health Care, which prompted a wave of Republican dominance and Newt Gingerich’s control of the House. Ouch.

So the big question of the day seemed to be: will the Democrats lose their large 58-seat (at least) lead in the Senate and their 257-seat majority in the House in the 2010 elections? Surprisingly, the answer seems to be no. But this does not necessarily mean that Democrats are going to remain wholly popular for the next two years. They are likely to hold onto their leads because in the political climate of 2010, some of the most popular Democrats will be up for reelection and some of the least popular Republicans will face their potential doom.

Let’s start with the Senate. Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight gives a pretty complete rundown of the most competitive races in 2010 and the chances that those seats will change parties. Among other states, he points to Kansas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Kentucky and Nevada as the most likely to change parties. And in only one of those states - Nevada- would the Democratic incumbent (the vastly unpopular Harry Reid) lose to the Republican. And many argue that this is not as likely as conservatives would have you believe.

But the deep red state of Kansas is very promising for Democrats. The two-term Senator and 2008 Republican Presidential nominee Sam Brownback has announced that he will retire before that election. This will undoubtedly precipitate a contentious Republican Primary battle followed by a strong Democratic Challenger, Kathleen Sebelius. Sebelius, the popular Governor of Kansas was seriously considered as a VP candidate for the Obama ticket. When she was passed over for that position, it was a foregone conclusion that she would be offered a place in the Cabinet. But she has recently taken her name out of consideration, which suggests that she could be gearing up to take Brownback's open seat in 2010.

Pennsylvania is another likely Democratic pickup. Arlen Specter, the long-time Senator is expected to undergo intense opposition from both Republicans and Democrats in two years. He is vulnerable for a couple of reasons: his age, health, and the fact that Pennsylvania has become a deeper shade of blue in the past two elections. In 2004, he squeaked by Pat Toomey of the conservative Club for Growth in the Republican primary election. Toomey is expected to try again for Specter's spot. The Democrats have also lined up a few strong candidates, most notably Rep. Allyson Schwartz and Iraq War Veteran Rep. Patrick Murphy. Chris Bowers of OpenLeft handicaps the match ups here.

Silver also says that the Democrats have a pretty good chance to pick up seats in Ohio and Kentucky because of vulnerable Republican incumbents, but it is unclear so far which Democratic candidates would vie for those seats.

Keep in mind, that the seats vacated by Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton will be targets for the Republicans because the interim candidates will not have much experience to run on in 2010. But those states, Illinois, Delaware, and New York are not traditionally strong red states, which gives Democrats a strong advantage.

All in all, due to the unique political climate of 2010, Silver predicts that the Democrats will net between 1-3 seats, which would be enough to propel them above the 60-seats needed to prevent a Republican filibuster. In a midterm election for a Democrat's first term, that would be incredible.

Since the races for vacancies and challenges in the House are much more complicated, I will let the pundits speak for themselves. Read this interview published on Salon.com with NBC National Political Director Chuck Todd, Chris Hays, the Washington Editor of the Nation, and Amy Walter, the editor-in-chief of the Hotline for the National Journal Group.

The exciting aspect to take away from these predictions is that the Democrats could maintain their advantages in the Executive and Legislative branches for the duration of Obama's first term. According to the likely political climate of 2010, it would take a serious bungling of foreign and domestic affairs for the Republicans to take back their advantage. And I'm talking Bush bungling.

Matthews Not Running for PA Senate Seat

Politico reports that Matthews will sign a long-term contract with MSNBC, which means that he will probably not run for Specter's seat that opens up in 2010.

Last Thursday, Chris Bowers of OpenLeft handicapped the race on the Democratic side for Specter's seat. He now predicts Rep. Allyson Schwartz and Rep. Patrick Murphy to be the Dem. front runners.

Good News for People who Don't Like Genocide (bad news if you do)

The Washington Post reports today that the government of Sudan is uncomfortable with Barack Obama's agressive opposition to genocide. A quote from Ghazi Suleiman, a member of the Southern People's Liberation Movement, which has a power-sharing agreement with Sudan's ruling party: "I think we really will miss the judgments of George W. Bush."

That says more about Bush than Suleiman or Sudan.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden have both spoken about the need for a larger international presence in cases of genocide. And they are expected tofollow the advice of many advisors and reports that urge more involvement in humanitarian issues throughout the world.

And Susan E. Rice, Obama's choice for Ambassador to the United Nations, is an ouspoken proponent of U.S. intervention in genocides.

Elections in Ghana are Prize for Democracy

Today nearly half of Ghana's population is expected to vote on who succeeds President John Kufour, who has led the country for eight years, the maximum length allowed according to Ghana's constitution. Though Ghana was the first African nation to declare independence from European colonization, it endured decades of military and dictatorial leadership.

Before Kufour was elected, the military leader J.J. Rawlings ruled the country from 1981 through 2001. He first overthrew the government in 1979 to rid it of corruption and try to re-implement a democratic system. But Dr. Hilla Limann, who was elected after this coup, soon defaulted to the corruption that was traditionally part of Ghanaian politics. This led to Rawlings' second military coup in 1981. For the next twelve years, Rawlings ruled the country as the Chairman of the Provisional National Defense Council (PNDC). In his second decade, Rawlings changed his title to "President" and was elected through a series of less-than-legitimate elections. John Kufour was elected in Democratic elections in 2001. Click here for a timeline.

So Kufour's decision to step down after two terms serving as President indicates Ghana's incredible transformation and status as a Democratic power in Africa. The election, between Kufour's chosen successor Nana Akufo-Addo of the NPP and John Atta Mills of Rawlings' Party, the NDC, is likely to run smoothly without the electoral corruption that has plagued elections and led to politically-charged violence in some African countries including Nigeria, Kenya, and Zimbabwe.

I spent four months studying abroad in Ghana in the Spring of 2007. The photo above is from the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Ghana's independence from British rule. Though Rawlings is still a force in Ghanaian politics, a relapse to electoral fraud and political manipulation of the population seems seriously unlikely. From what I could tell, Ghanaians are extremely proud of their status as one of the world's solid Democracies. Hopefully that status will be maintained by a successful transfer of power after today's election.

Are Liberals Really Enraged?

In the past few weeks, there has been considerable discussion surrounding liberal anger about Obama’s early cabinet choices. Pundits are falling all over themselves to get liberals to say that they feel abandoned by this apparent move to the center. This issue is largely born from three symptoms:

1) There are many liberals who are truly and legitimately frustrated with Obama's choices,
2) The media’s overwhelming urge to create controversy,
3) The Republican Party’s insistence they are not failing and that Obama must complement his Presidency with a constant string of centrist policies.

A Wall Street Journal article today argues the following: “Having enraged the left wing of his party with several initial high-profile appointments, Mr. Obama is now under pressure to placate this mob. One obvious, if frightening, choice would be to reward them with the energy-and-environment portfolio, turning it over to a team that shares the grass-roots' green agenda.”

First of all, this overstates the disappointment that the Left has had with Obama’s initial appointments. A Gallup Poll released today finds that 65% of liberals are still supportive of President-elect Obama. And even for those who are less-than-pleased, this is frustration, not rage. And I think that his early picks have been politically essential to improve his mandate and have a more widespread impact when he is inaugurated on January 20. Also, if Obama begins to appoint more liberal Cabinet members, it will be because they are the best candidates for those jobs, not to “placate this mob” of blood-thirsty-centrist-hating-socialist crazies.

Second, these early Cabinet choices are in departments that one might expect a liberal President to make more centrist choices by default: foreign relations and the economy. All throughout the Primary, Barack Obama promised to "gather up talent from everywhere." (I also want to note that his choice for Ambassador to the U.N., Susan E. Rice, is a strong progressive who seems eager to reject the policies of the Bush Administration.)

But Obama still has many cabinet positions to fill, and these are primarily areas in which he is likely to go liberal. These include Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Education, and head of the EPA. And an openly gay woman - Mary Beth Maxwell - is being seriously considered for Secretary of Labor.

And above all this, I believe in the argument that all of these Secretaries are Obama’s employees. At the end of the day, regardless of their own ideology, they will implement Obama’s policies.

So before we liberals freak out about Obama’s departure from the left, and before conservatives declare victory in this ongoing ideological war, let’s remember that we are barely beginning the first quarter of a long, eight year Obama Presidency. Sure, Obama is likely to be more centrist than a lot of us would like, but let’s keep the hope alive that he will deliver on that oft-cited message of change.

Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism?

Interesting article in Forbes about veiled anti-semetism in the United Nations.

When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism. --The Rev. Martin Luther King, 1968

Matthews to Leave MSNBC?

MSNBC suggested yesterday that Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, should resign from the show if he intends to run for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania to out seat Republican Arlen Specter, as rumors suggest that he will.

Matthews recently denied his interest in the Senate seat after it was reported that he spoke to officials from the Pennsylvania Democratic Party about strategy.

His celebrity could be a plus or a minus. It would benefit him because he has much more pre-election exposure to voters than an unknown or local leader would. But it could, as former Democratic Congressman Joe Hoeffel suggested, make him seem “out of touch with the state.”

Either way, it would be a tough fight for Matthews. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, he trails Specter by 12 points. But that is before he has even announced his candidacy, and 60% of likely voters said that they did not have enough information to make a firm choice. And a brand new Ramussen poll shows Matthews behind by only three points. And Kleefeld says that most of the undecideds in this poll would likely "end up breaking to Matthews as the Dem nominee."

Matthews’ most difficult obstacle might come in the Democratic Primary. Other potential candidates to challenge Specter are Rep. Allyson Schwartz and state Rep. Josh Shapiro, both from Montgomery County, and Rep. Joe Sestak, from Delaware County.

If Matthews emerges from the primary the victor, then I think he would be an exciting and charged candidate to take on Arlen Specter. So stay tuned to see whether he resigns, or if this is simply a bargaining tool to get a better contract from MSNBC when his contract expires next June.

Here's David Sirota of OpenLeft on why Chris Matthews would be an awful addition to the U.S. Senate.

Oh Well

Incumbent Saxby Chambliss has won the Senate runoff in Georgia. It’s now clear that the Democrats are not going to attain that 60 seat majority necessary to stop a Republican filibuster. But really, that was unlikely to happen anyway. On November 5, Saxby Chambliss got about 49.8% of the vote, when 50% was needed to prevent a runoff . And Chambliss’ opponent, Jim Martin, had a lot going against him. First of all, he lost the election. Second, Obama’s win and the large Democratic gains in the House and Senate must have prompted conservatives and independents to flock to Chambliss to check the Democrat’s power.

All eyes now turn to the Minnesota recount between Al Franken and incumbent Norm Coleman. Recent numbers show Franken down by fewer than 50 votes, and that number keeps decreasing. I don’t know when they will finally call this recount, but the longer it goes, the better it looks for the Democrats and the chances of attaining a 59 seat majority.

Philadelphia Governor’s Meeting “Very Productive”

President-elect Obama met with 48 members of the National Governors Association today to talk about the economic stimulus plan that President Obama hopes to sign into effect when he is inaugurated on January 20, 2009.

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell said “this is the best of all the financial recovery plans [because] all of the previous bailouts don’t do one thing to create one new job.”

Obama was also careful to strike a bi-partisan tone: "There is a time for campaigning, and there is a time for governing," he said. "And one of the messages that Joe and I want to continually send is that we are not going to be hampered by ideology in trying to get this country back on track."

Since 41 States are experiencing budget shortfalls for next year, their involvement in the stimulus plan was essential. But Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter worried that Obama would forget the importance of cities. "We’re at the ground level. We fill potholes, we pick up trash....It is literally where the rubber meets the road. We just want to make sure there is federal support for us as well." Nutter, who is slashing next year’s budget because of an unexpected deficit, recently wrote to Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson asking for Federal support.

VP Calls for Rail Transit

Yglesias brings up a good point about today’s Governor’s Association meeting in Philadelphia. Biden issued a speech laying out some reasons that we should promote public transportation, specifically rail transit. Focusing Obama’s stated desire to promote public works projects on public transportation would be incredibly smart. There are still many American cities that have sub-par transportation systems within the city and almost non-existent rail options from the ‘burbs.

Jumpstarting a massive rail construction program would kill many birds with one giant, expensive stone. It would prompt suburbanites who live outside the city to visit and spend on urban businesses and entertainment; it would provide cheap, public transportation for urban workers who live outside the city; and most importantly, it would drastically reduce the number of people who commute in personal vehicles, and thereby benefit our degraded, asthma-ridden natural environment.

Seattle is a good example of the need for more rail-centric public transportation. Within the city, it is fairly easy to get around using the bus system. But there is no rail transit besides the monorail that goes about three blocks and was created as spectacle for the World’s Fair in 1962.

But a Light Rail will be completed next year to transport people from SeaTac airport to downtown Seattle and back. I’m very glad that this is happening, but its impact will not reach its potential unless complemented by a more extensive rail program becuase traffic west into Seattle from the Eastside is awful for hours every morning and evening. And the same goes for along I-5 north of the city center. Both are areas that the Light Rail will not service.

Biden’s suggestion for developing more rail transit would help cities like Seattle develop their rail programs to benefit workers, drivers, and the environment.

Terrorism and the Cabinet

In a Washington Post column today, Eugene Robinson discusses threats of terrorism in relation to Obama’s newly-announced-but-unsurprising foreign policy team. When asked about the terrorist attacks in India, which many believe were supported by Pakistan, Obama promised to fight “those who kill innocent individuals to advance hateful extremism.” Robinson asks whether this is actually the definition of terrorism.

I think George and I were talking about this the other day. Is terrorism necessarily connected to an ideological objective? Or is terrorism more generally defined as a violent act to destabilize an established group and kill innocent people? My initial reaction was that terrorism is traditionally general, encompassing those who kill for a cause and those who kill for no reason. In its modern form, though, terrorism definitely refers to ideologically-based carnage.

So what do Obama’s choices for his foreign policy team suggest about his stance on terrorism? Well, it’s an interesting team. There was considerable debate among liberals about whether keeping Robert Gates as Secretary as Defense was a good choice. I would have been happier with someone else, but I see the political necessity to keeping a Republican in that position and having continuity in our wars as we get a new Commander in Chief.

Also, I think that the best way for the U.S. to protect itself against terror is to drastically change its perception in the world and that means engaging in constructive discussions with our foes. Steve Clemons writes that Gates could be a productive voice in making this happen.

He wants to try and push Iran-US relations into a constructive direction. He wants to change the game in Afghanistan -- and the answer will not be a military-dominant strategy. He wants to try and stabilize Iraq in a negotiated, confidence building process that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and other regional forces. And he wants to support a big push on Israel-Palestine peace and reconfigure relations between much of the Arab League and Israel.

And the choice of General James L. Jones as National Security Advisor once again shows that Obama values a Cabinet with experience to implement his vision. General Jones is a retired Marine and former NATO commander. In recent months, Jones has criticized the war in Iraq because it forced the U.S. to “take its eye off the ball” in Afghanistan, which he sees as the central front in the war on terror. Jones also views reducing our dependence on foreign energy as central to decreasing the risk of future terrorism.

Obama’s choices for top foreign policy positions are very interesting, though not progressive. But if he’s going to choose a department in which to flex his bipartisan muscles, then the Department of Defense is a pretty good choice. And Gates and Jones are not your typical Rumsfeldian Defense Department ideologues.

Pinch Me - I Love Susan E. Rice

This morning President-elect Obama named Susan E. Rice, a proponent of military force to combat genocide, his choice for the Cabinet position of Ambassador to the United Nations. This sends an incredible message that the Obama administration will restore one of the most important aspects of American moral superiority: helping other nations even when there is no political profit. Of course, we should not intervene in all cases, but I think we must when it comes to genocide.

We said “never again” after the genocide in Germany. We said “never again” after the genocide in Yugoslavia. We said “never again” after the genocide in Rwanda. And we said nothing during the genocide in Sudan.

The choice of Rice as ambassador to the United Nations sends a clear message that the U.S. (or at least the Obama administration) will never again neglect to respond to an international genocide.

In her own words after visiting post-genocide Rwanda: "I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required."

Obama also named Hillary Clinton Secretary of State, General James Jones as National Security Advisor, Eric Holder as Attorney General and Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security. Robert Gates, appointed by Bush, will stay on as Secretary of Defense.

Matthews Denies 2010 Senate Run

This week, the MSNBC political commentator and host of Hardball with Chris Matthews and The Chris Matthews show, Chris Matthews, denied a report by FiveThirtyEight that he was meeting with Obama campaign operatives about staffing his rumored 2010 Senate campaign to unseat Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter.

It is still unclear how Matthews would do against the moderate Republican. A Quinnipiac poll released last week showed Matthews trialing by twelve points, with 60% of voters saying that they don’t know enough about Matthews to make an informed decision at this time. Philadelphia is the only region in which Matthews currently leads. But Matthews could be a formidable opponent. He worked as a top aide to former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill and a presidential speech writer for Jimmy Carter. Add that to Obama’s political machine, and I think you’ve got a pretty good candidate.

300 Dead in Nigerian Riots...

And this article is buried low on the New York Times homepage. This weekend's horrifying terrorist attacks in India received appropriate media coverage. Why is an Indian life more significant than a Nigerian life?

Here is a pretty good article with video on BBC.

CNN

Washington Post

More on this later this week.

Is Africa African?

Ezra Klein asks whether we should refer to African countries as "African." The basic arguments are as follows.

1. It is ridiculous to refer to all countries on the continent as similar. The continent is infinitely larger than the United States, and we barely speak of people from California and Oregon as the same nationality. Referring to it all as "Africa" instead of the name of the specific country being discussed reinforces the idea of Africa as the Dark Continent, a large mass of indistinguishable land.
   
2. There is a really powerful connection to be drawn between the African countries. Even though each has its own distinct history, countries as diverse as Ghana, South Africa, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have a similar post-colonial identity because of the shared legacy of European colonization. Speaking about "Africa" is useful to study this connection.

I see both sides. While living in Ghana for a semester, I saw that people definitely think of themselves first as their individual ethnic group - Ga, Ibo, Ewe - and second as Ghanaian or African. But there was still a certain pride in being African. My roommate Derek was thrilled by the success of Senegal's Akon and the prospect of Kenya's Obama being President of the United States. Their success showed that success for Africans in the United States was possible.

So I don't think that we should unilaterally say that the "African" connection should be used or avoided. But I think that we need to be careful about how we talk about African countries on a cas-by-case basis.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Sorry for the previous downer of a post. Really, I love Thanksgiving. Like many things American, its got a shady past, but thats what is so encouraging about all things American. We've still got a long way to go to live up to the potential for American greatness. And I sincerely hope that we will reach such greatness during my lifetime.

ThinkProgress has a pretty good list of things they are thankful for. Some of those are provided below.

We’re thankful we’ll soon have a president who will hit the ground running instead of a president who is running the country into the ground.

We’re thankful Sarah Palin has more time to watch over Russia and warn us in case Vladimir Putin ever “rears his head.”

We’re thankful that we’re moving closer towards a complete withdrawal from Iraq.

We’re thankful for the thousands of protesters who took to the streets across America to push for marriage equality.

We’re not thankful for neo-McCarthys, neo-Hoovers, neo-Nazis, and neocons.

We’re thankful for Tina Fey.

We’re thankful to be liberal hacks.

We’re thankful that our troops will be able to get the education they so richly deserve.

We’re thankful that reality still has a liberal bias.

We’re thankful that there are only 54 days left until the end of the George W. Bush presidency.

We’re thankful for the progressive mandate to govern.

What, to the Native American, is Thanksgiving?

In 1852, Frederick Douglas was asked to speak at a convention in Rochester, NY to commemorate the 4th of July. At this point, the ownership and mistreatment of slaves was still accepted throughout the United States.

Douglass’ speech, “What to the American Slave, is the 4th of July” was a brief but well-reasoned rebuke against the (lack of) logic of asking him to speak. Pointing out the hypocrisy of American independence day, Douglass said:

Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine.

I wonder if Native Americans feel the same way about Thanksgiving. The revisionist history of Thanksgiving is that we Europeans jumped off the boat and were graciously welcomed by America’s original inhabitants so everyone shared a massive feast to commemorate their great partnership in this great country.

We now know that this story is entirely false. In reality, Europeans stole their land, and massacred the vast majority of the Native American population. The discrimination of America’s native population was official government policy for the vast majority of our history, just as slavery and racial segregation was official U.S. policy for more than two hundred years. And we have yet to repent properly.

So what, to the Native American, is Thanksgiving? It is a farce that highlights the government’s selective amnesia in its darkest hours. It is a mockery of the beautiful and well-maintained land that was stolen in return for the dusty reservations that white people did not want.

Thanksgiving should make us think about what we are thankful for. But it should also make us think about our failings and how we can improve upon them. And I would like to see a more whole-hearted attempt by the United States government to apologize for its original sins of slavery and Native American relocation, even if this attempt is only in the form of words.

That would finally make days like the 4th of July and Thanksgiving fully inclusive holidays that represent national cohesion rather than ignore past oppression.

Gay Rights for the 21st Century

Jonathan Rauch of The Advocate writes about the gay rights agenda in an Obama-Biden world, which is more accepting of minorities and oppressed populations than, well, the Bush-Cheney world.

He cites Hillary Clinton’s concession speech as an example of the United State’s new accepting stance towards gay rights. Each mention of extending equity to gays and lesbians was met with thunderous applause, and mostly from young people. The gay cause is now a rallying-cry for the Democratic Party's liberal base, not an ashamed aside. And when my generation is in charge, the right wing’s homophobic agenda will be a fringe issue, not the norm for the Republican Party.

(Clearly we aren’t yet an entirely accepting nation, which is proven by the anti-gay marriage amendments passed this month in California, Arizona and Florida. But we are definitely moving that way.)

So Rauch presents the necessity to alter gay advocacy for our more accepting times. He writes, “the time has come to pivot away from the culturally defensive pariah agenda -- the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, for instance -- and toward the culturally transformative family agenda.” Andrew Sullivan calls this “Gay Rights 3.0”.

Moving towards a more culturally transformative approach is smart because we are going in that direction just by virtue of progress. So it makes sense for the gay rights movement to evolve to reflect those changes, as Rauch suggests.

True acceptance of homosexuals might take a little while, but it will happen. We just need to wait for people to grow up a little bit, both literally and symbolically.

Congo - Interview

Speigel Online has published an interview with Vital Kamerhe, the president of the National Assembly for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. To me, the most poignant section is when he is asked about Luarent Nkunda’s mission of protecting the Tutsis. Kamerhe responds, “Today we have Tutsi generals in the Congolese army and Tutsi workers at state enterprises. Their best source of protection are the institutions of the Republic, not a rebel army.” Kamerhe also speaks of the need for talks between the government and the rebel army. Nkunda has refused repeated requests to meet with the DRC government.

Unfortunately, it seems to me like the rebel army’s fight is not so much with the DRC government, but more with the Hutu genocide perpetrators who fled to the rural areas of the DRC after Rwanda’s genocide. So anything short of helping Nkunda’s army round up the alleged perpetrators might not appease the rebels.

Also, Sarah pointed out this story (with video and photos) on the front page of CNN yesterday.

Interview Transcript:

SPIEGEL: Why hasn't your government succeeded in bringing peace to the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo?

Vital Kamerhe: After the peace agreement of 2002 the rebel organizations were absorbed into the army. Because of this, our troops now consist of regular soldiers as well as former militia members. The army is fragile and frustrated, and it has been infiltrated. It makes it difficult to enforce peace.

SPIEGEL: The soldiers are attacking civilians, plundering, and raping.
Kamerhe: Anyone responsible for massacres belongs in front of an international court. Because of the war in the east, we have had no time to reform our security forces or justice system.

SPIEGEL: Rebel leader Laurent Nkunda, your main enemy, says he needs to protect the Tutsis in the eastern part of the country from the Hutu-killers who fled to Congo after the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.

Kamerhe: This is just a pretext. Today we have Tutsi generals in the Congolese army and Tutsi workers at state enterprises. Their best source of protection are the institutions of the Republic, not a rebel army.

SPIEGEL: Isn't the war really a fight over natural resources?

Kamerhe: Our country is a special case geologically. We possess valuable minerals like coltan, gold and diamonds. Our natural resources are being exhausted by the Nkunda rebels, who conduct their sales through Rwanda. Big companies in China, Russia, Europe and the US are the recipients. They share the guilt for this exploitation. We prefer that the resources be used legally.

SPIEGEL: The UN Security Council wants to strengthen its 18,000 blue helmet force with 3,000 additional men. Is that enough?

Kamerhe: We need international troops to protect the populace. There also needs to be political talks with Nkunda and diplomatic efforts to restore the relationship between Congo and Rwanda. That will take time. To begin with we hope for an EU-contingent -- 850 men can help stop a humanitarian catastrophe.

Come Together (Right Now!)

Congressional Democrats: Stop acting like children. Martin Kady II of Politico reports today that there will be numerous divisions among the Democrats even if they win the filibuster-proof 60-seat majority. Most likely, after the Minnesota recount and Georgia runoff election, Dems will have 58 or 59 seats, but 60 is still possible.

Regardless, there is a chance that, enjoying a mandate to make a huge impact in the first two years, the Democrats will revert to infighting and squander their opportunity to change. From Politico:

Unless Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can whip their caucuses into unity, numerous fault lines will be revealed: Southern Democrats vs. Northern liberals on labor law; California greens vs. Rust Belt Democrats on global warming; socialized medicine adherents vs. go-slow health care reformers; anti-war liberals vs. cautious centrists on national security. And don’t forget the anti-bailout crowd vs. the powerful Michigan Democrats in both chambers when it comes to money for Detroit.

I sincerely hope this is not what the next two years of Democratic control looks like. But I don’t quite trust members of congress to protect against that inevitability. Each Senator and Representative has his or her own constituency that they (understandably) need to look out for and will therefore continue to pursue pet issues.

So it is important for Democrat-in-Chief Barack Obama to lay out a clear Congressional agenda for Democrats to unite behind. That agenda should include:

1.) Passing a massive and efficient economic stimulus plan.
2.) Reforming the health care system with Universal Health Care as the ideal.
3.) Starting to bring troops home from Iraq. Remember Iraq?

I would also put broadening environmental policy on that list, but that could be a hard-fought battle within the Democratic Party between environmental champions like Henry Waxman and Barbara Boxer (both from California) and pro-labor, business-focused Democrats like Evan Bayh (Indiana), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), and Debbie Stabenow (Michigan). Though both sides are looking out for important goals, those objectives will directly clash in this case.

So in order to get something done and maintain the Democratic control of Washington in 2010 and 2012, Democrats need to stick to the basics and what they can agree on early: Economic stimulus, health care reform, and stopping the war in Iraq.

Help Wanted: Vision, Experience, Clout

The new Obama administration has promised to change Washington. Whether they succeed in changing the bitter partisanship and menial bureaucracy, one thing is sure: the group of Senate Democrats will change a great deal.

For the past four years, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have been three of the most prominent Democratic voices and critics of George W. Bush in Washington. They have all stood out for different reasons.

Obama, the charismatic and sole African American in the Senate has been lauded since his 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention as the Democratic Party’s next Visionary. Joe Biden has been a Senator from Delaware for 36 years. He, along with Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts (though Biden to a lesser extent) is one of the party’s most consistent progressive voices. Holding stints as chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, he is one of his Party’s most experienced leaders. Hillary Clinton has been an outstanding, though moderate, Senator from New York for the past six years. And as the former First Lady, Clinton has more clout in Washington than most of her Democratic colleagues.

So as Obama, Biden and Clinton begin their new roles as President, Vice President, and Secretary of State (rumored), Senate Democrats will begin the search for replacements for these candidates. And that is a difficult undertaking.


Barack Obama, Illinois
Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich (D) must choose Obama’s replacement. And since Obama has already resigned his seat, the pressure has begun for the second-term governor.

There are a lot of factors to consider. First, as holds true for all of these replacements, Governors must choose a candidate who would be a strong contender for reelection in only 2 years – all three Senate replacements will face Republican challengers in 2010. So Blagojevich should not choose a political neophyte who could appear vulnerable to the Illinois GOP.

There are also demographic concerns. Obama, as the Senate’s only African American, occupies an essential seat. His election as President, a momentous occasion for African Americans, once again made the U.S. Senate 0% black. So should Blagojevich appoint an African-American replacement? If he chooses to, then Jesse Jackson Jr. would be the obvious choice. Jackson Jr. represents an urban area including Chicago’s south suburbs in the Illinois House of Representatives. Though he holds high favorability ratings, it is reported that Blagojevich and Chicago’s six-term mayor Richard M. Daley do not like him.

I’m hoping that Jackson gets appointed because, though it is not the only or most important qualification, I think it is imperative that we maintain an African American presence in the Senate. Even if that presence is negligible, it sets a foundation that will undoubtedly strengthen before long.

The other leading contender for Obama’s seat is Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran and Illinois Veterans Affairs Director who is a close Obama ally. Duckworth is an Asian American and would add an invaluable minority and female voice to the Senate. From what I can tell, both Jackson Jr. and Duckworth are incredibly worthy of Obama’s seat.


Joe Biden, Delaware
Joe Biden has held this seat for 36 years, since he was 30 years old. The only way that Biden could have lost this seat was to give it up himself or by some tragedy. But with Biden’s election as Vice President, current governor Ruth Ann Minner or Governor-elect Jack Markell – both Democrats – will be charged with filling this legendary seat.

The immediate front-runner was Biden’s son Beau, the state’s current Attorney General. But Beau Biden has recently said that he would not accept the position if appointed because he must fulfill his commitment to a yearlong tour in Iraq.

So likely choices are the state’s Lieutenant Governor John Carney, Secretary of State Harriet Windsor, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Myron Steele. As these candidates are relatively unknown, I’d expect the Delware GOP to mount an all-out offensive for this seat in 2010.


Hillary Clinton, New York
Keep in mind, Clinton has not yet formally accepted Barack’s nomination for Secretary of State. And that nomination has not yet been formally given. This is also interesting because if she does not accept the nomination, she could probably hold this Senate seat for life. But being a Clinton means you seek the highest position possible when it is offered. And service is not an option. I think that Hillary will definitely accept both out of ambition and out of duty.

New York Governor David Patterson will choose her replacement if she accepts the nomination. There are anywhere between 10-20 possible selections for this seat. Patterson has vowed that he would not appoint himself, as he hopes to seek re-election for Governor in 2010.

The leading contender is Andrew Cuomo, the New York Attorney General. In a nearly worthless poll, 43% of New Yorkers said that they would prefer Mr. Cuomo. 42% were unsure, and the remainder – 15% - were split between state reps Nydia M. Velázquez, Steve Israel, Nita M. Lowey and Gregory W. Meeks. Update: Chris Cilliza of Washington Post lists the probabilities of each potential NY candidate.

This is the seat that I am most excited to see filled because the list of potential Clinton replacements is incredibly diverse, including women, African Americans, Latino Americans, and of course, white men. Patterson could go with the safe, and likely smart choice, Andrew Cuomo, or a risky and dynamic unknown future Senator.


The Power of Vision
By virtue of filling powerful senate seats with new appointments, experience and clout is difficult to replicate. But vision can certainly be reintroduced. Remember, Barack Obama was elected to the Senate only four years ago. And he has already become one of the greatest American visionaries of the past half-century.

So I hope that Governors Blagojevich (IL), Minner (DE) and Patterson (NY) will appoint exciting candidates that will bring powerful visions to the Senate. Such vision could have three results. 1.) Vision can inspire a massive movement; 2.) Vision can turn into steady and effective governance, and therefore translate to experience; and 3.) a powerful Vision can create the clout needed to usher in a new post-partisan era in Washington.

Jimmy Carter Denied Zimbabwe Visa

Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe has just forbidden a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize from entering his country. I'd say that sends a message. Carter was going to visit on a humanitarian mission with former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and former South African President Nelson Mandela, also a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

This is an indication of Mugabe's contempt for peace and a "measure of the Zimbabwean leader’s disdain for international opinion at a time when deepening hunger, raging hyperinflation and the collapse of health, sanitation and education services have crippled Zimbabwe."

Can't Make This Up

This is hilarious. Palin completes an interview while Turkeys are brutally killed behind her. It is like something out of a National Lampoon's Family Vacation movie. I think it gets best around minute 2:30.

Looking Bleak

The National Intellegence Council has predicted what the world will look like for the U.S. in 2025. And some of the predictions look pretty intimidating. Highlighted by the Daily Kos:

U.S. economic and political clout will decline over the next two decades and the world will be more dangerous, with food and water scarce and advanced weapons plentiful, U.S. spy agencies projected on Thursday. ...

The U.S. dollar's role as the world's major currency would weaken to become a "first among equals," the report said. ...

A world with multiple power centers has been less stable than one with a single or two rival superpowers, and there was a growing potential for conflict, the report said.

Global warming will be felt, and water, food and energy constraints may fuel conflict over resources.

At least we will still have 50 states. But Kos also reports that the NIC did another report four years ago that was much more optimistic. I shudder to think about what the 2012 predictions will look like.

Today's Dumbest Argument (so far)

The Wall Street Journal argues that Representative Henry Waxman (D-California) replaced Representative John Dingell (D- Michigan) as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee because “Ms. Pelosi loathes Mr. Dingell's independence -- especially on environmental matters.”

Also, Waxman only promotes environmentally responsible policies because he speaks “for the upscale precincts of Beverly Hills.”

The Trouble with Compromise

I remember growing up learning that compromise was the greatest virtue. At home I learned to share; at school I learned about Henry Clay (“The Great Compromiser”) and the Missouri Compromise.

Christina (co-worker) and I were just talking about bailing out the auto industry. We distilled two ways for the auto industry to get back on track.

1.) The market will correct itself. If the Big Three files for bankruptcy, then an external investor will intervene to reinvent the company and make it work better

2.) The government can bail out the Big Three under the conditions of improving operations and making more efficient cars.

I favor the government approach because it will ensure that labor is protected and will put environment as a priority. In general, government wants to protect people and business wants to protect business. And I prefer people to business. (I’m forgetting for the moment that businesses are made up of and therefore protect people.)

When it comes to a government-supervised reconstruction of the auto industry, critics are likely correct: The government won’t do a good job. If the left (or right) has a good idea about how to do it, then they will have to bend over backwards to compromise to get a restructuring program through congress. This compromise will undoubtedly make the program close-to-worthless.

What starts with good intentions ends with good legislation, which is bad in practice.

Why can’t democrats win 100 Senate seats?

Women!

Yes, Eric, Hillary Clinton is a woman. But she has not been appointed yet, so I did not count it.

Obama will reportedly appoint Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (pictured above) to lead the Department of Homeland Security. It sounds like a really great fit for her and a cool choice from the Obama administration due to her success in immigration. It's a little unfortunate because Napolitano was expected to be a strong challenger for John McCain's senate seat in 2010. But a cabinet position would be a huge political boost for her as well.

Obama was also courting Penny Pritzker, the Chicago businesswoman of hyatt-fame, for Secretary of Commerce, but it looks like she has taken her name out of contention.

With Holder, Napilitano and Clinton (and some other white guys) potentially in powerful positions, it looks like Obama's cabinet could be truly diverse.

Etc...

Some items I have not weighed in on.

Lieberman

The Dems had to keep him in the caucus. Cutting him out would have sent a terrible message that breaking party lines is unacceptable. On the other hand, Sarah was saying last week that the problem with Lieberman was not that he supported McCain, but the way in which he did it. He said some pretty awful things about Obama’s “Marxist” views and ties to objectionable people. But either way, I’m glad they kept him in the caucus because I just don’t care about him too much. Let him keep the chairmanships that he has earned. But don’t let the man get any more powerful. He’s just not worth that much thought.

Clinton as Secretary of State

The idea of this has grown on me a lot. I still think that Bill Richardson would do an incredible job, but Clinton really could be well suited for the role. As First Lady, she has already visited many international countries and met with world leaders. This would give her a familiarity that could be valuable on the world stage.

Still, I don’t understand why she would want the job. As I wrote before, she would be giving up a Senate seat for life for what is most likely a 4 year job. It’s not likely that she is trying to beef up her foreign policy credentials to challenge Barack in 2012, and she would probably be too old to run in 2016. For those reasons, it seems like Hillary as Secretary of State is a better option for the U.S. than it is for her and anyway, she seems to have her own reservations.


Is anyone else wondering when Barack is going to appoint a woman to something?

I initially thought he'd appoint Janet Napolitano Attorney General, but it looks like that position is going to Eric Holder.

The Continuing Congo Crisis

Though the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has not been front and center in major media outlets, some sources have written very powerfully on the subject. BBC on the UN’s involvement in the Congo; Washington Post on the devastating destruction of the rebel militias; New York Times on the Congo’s natural resources and how they fuel the fighting; most poignantly, Slate on the western world’s refusal to help significantly even after the collective guilt inspired by not doing something in Rwanda in 1994.

A little background:

The 1994 Rwandan genocide was a direct result of this pre-independence ethnic favoritism; the Hutu majority (making up nearly 85% of the population) violently and maliciously rose up against the Tutsi leadership with devastating results. By most estimates, 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were murdered in the 100 days of the Rwandan genocide.

Since the genocide, the Tutsis have retained control of the government, forcing ethnically biased policies on the population. The government’s treatment of the country’s Hutu population – perpetrator and innocent alike – prompted many Hutus to flee to the mountainous region of the Congo, afraid of further government retaliation. This resulted in a series of wars between 1998-2003, the aftermath of which (still being felt today) were responsible for more than 5 million deaths.

More recently, the Tutsi rebel leader Laurent Nkunda has organized militias to protect the DRC’s Tutsi population from the Hutu genocidaires who fled to the DRC after the genocide in 1994 to avoid prosecution for their crimes.

What it means

The central problem plaguing Rwanda and the DRC is the lack of a moderate government. Only in 2006, the DRC inaugurated its first democratically elected government. Before that, its leadership had been dictated by military coups and ethnically charged ideologues. The country’s Tutsi population is statistically insignificant and feels that it cannot impact the government democratically, which some say is the reason for the rise of Laurant Nkunda’s rebel army.

This is all important because many sources say that Nkunda’s rebel army might be associated with the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan government. Nkunda famously calls himself the "Savior of the Tutsis" and his fighting under the supervision of the Rwandan government would surely cause a regional war between Rwanda, the DRC and many other Central African nations, based not only on governmental sovereignty but potentially on the same ethos that drove the ethnic wars of the last 15 years.

The international community must intervene before it is too late. Yes, the United Nations has been working hard in the Congo. But you would think that nearly 5.5 million deaths would require a major international presence in the country to work towards ending the war permanently.

Citing the West’s failure to act in the 1994 genocide, Michael Kavanagh presents this necessity very clearly:

Over the years, many world leaders have made the trip to Rwanda to stand before the gravesites of genocide victims and apologize for their inaction in 1994. But if the worth of an apology is measured not in words but in actions, most of these apologies have been rubbish. True repentance for Rwanda has always meant ending the Congolese conflict—especially in the Kivus.

Failing to act would mean adding the DRC to a list, including Rwanda and Sudan, of countries we don’t consider worth helping despite massive crises.