Politics on HuffingtonPost.com

Al Gore Heckled By Tea Partiers During Climate Speech In Florida

2009-11-15T16:52:12Z

Former Vice President Al Gore's global-warming speech Saturday night at Mizner Park drew about a thousand attendees, as well as more than 200 loud protesters.

Stationed outside the Mizner Park Amphitheater, the protesters jeered at Gore as he took the podium and at those walking into the open-air venue to listen to the speech.

David Brooks: Palin's A 'Joke,' A 'Potential Talk Show Host' (VIDEO)

2009-11-15T16:19:31Z

New York Times's columnist David Brooks -- never a huge fan of Sarah Palin -- laced into the former vice presidential candidate on Sunday, calling her a "joke" and a "potential talk show host."

Speaking the day before Palin's new book, "Going Rogue," is slated to be officially released, Brooks scoffed at the notion that the ex-governor was somehow ready to be the face of the GOP.

"She's a joke," he told ABC's "This Week." "I mean, I just can't take her seriously. We have got serious problems in the country. Barack Obama is trying to handle war. We just had a guy elected Virginia governor who is probably the model for future of the Republican Party, Bob McDonnell: Pretty serious guy, pragmatic, calm, kind of boring. The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are just not going to elect a talk show host."

Brooks has never been a big Palin believer. Back in October of 2008, he said that Palin "represents a fatal cancer to the Republican Party" and insisted that she was "absolutely not" ready to be president.

On Sunday, Brooks did get a bit of pushback to his Palin skepticism. Speaking right after him on the "This Week" panel, PBS' Gwen Ifill urged her compatriots not to "underestimate the degree to which women will be drawn to her story."

"And that is who she is speaking to," she added. "These are people who are ignored, who nobody counts into their thinking."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Liz Cheney Suggests Dad Dick As 2012 Presidential Candidate (VIDEO)

2009-11-15T15:58:44Z

In the midst of a discussion of the latest conservative scandal -- an uproar over the fact that President Obama bowed to the emperor of Japan -- Liz Cheney suggested her father take over the office in a few years.

Host Chris Wallace pointed out that former Vice President Dick Cheney did not bow to the emperor when he visited Japan. (He did not elaborate on how this difference in greeting affected American policy or foreign relations.)

"You could ... look at the comparison and think, Cheney 2012," Liz Cheney said.

"Really? How far do you want to go with that?" Wallace responded excitedly. "Let Liz make news ... Cheney/Palin," Bill Kristol cut in. "Or Palin/Cheney -- don't be sexist," Wallace added.

For more on this latest right-wing talking point, go here. And for what it's worth, here are some photos of President Eisenhower bowing to foreign leaders.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

McConnell: GOP Will Delay Health Care At Least Six More Weeks

2009-11-15T15:44:58Z

If there was any doubt that Senate Republicans are eager to drag their heels when it comes to health care reform, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) removed it on Sunday.

The Kentucky Republican, during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," demanded that the Senate take, at the very least, six weeks to deliberate legislation once it is sent to the floor for amendments.

"There will be a lot of amendments over a lot of weeks. The Senate is not the House, you saw in the House there was three votes and it was over in one day," McConnell warned. "This will be on the floor for quite a long time."

Warning that health care reform "cuts Medicare rates, raises taxes and raises insurance premiums," McConnell also insisted that Majority Leader Harry Reid had kept the legislation secret from his colleagues.

"We know it's been in Harry Reid's office for six weeks and the other 99 senators haven't seen it," he said. "I think we ought to at least have as much time for other 99 senators and all of the American people to take a look at this bill as Majority Leader Reid has had."

The strategy for Republicans, McConnell outlined, would be to "delay the process so we fully understand what's in the bill." That means a reform debate that's gone on for roughly nine months could extend to a tenth; if Republicans throw up enough parliamentary hurdles, reform could be delayed into 2010.

"I think it ought to be on the floor as least as long as it was in Harry Reid's office," said McConnell.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Axelrod Knocks Romney: 'Never Had Responsibility For Any Decision Akin To This' (VIDEO)

2009-11-15T15:30:16Z

On CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, White House senior adviser David Axelrod responded to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's criticism of the president. Romney expressed incredulity that President Obama had not made up his mind on Afghanistan.

"Why is it taking so long?" host John King asked.

"Governor Romney has to choose one argument of another," Axelrod responded. "Either he has to say he is not paying attention or he has to say he is taking too long because he has been involved in a rigorous review ... You know, I know that Governor Romney has never had responsibility for any decision akin to this, so he just may not be familiar with all that it entails."

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Clinton: NY Governor Rumor Completely Unfounded

2009-11-15T15:15:33Z

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is waving off rumors that she is considering a run for governor of New York. And former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani says he hasn't decided whether he'll run.

Clinton tells ABC's "This Week" that she wants to put to rest speculation that she would seek the governorship of New York. She says she is committed to her duties as secretary of state.

Giuliani says he'll decide soon whether to make a bid for governor. A Republican presidential candidate last year, Giuliani says he isn't leaning one way or another.

New York's Democratic governor, David Paterson, is seeking another term. Attorney General Andrew Cuomo hasn't said whether he'll challenge Paterson for the Democratic nomination.

Paul Raushenbush: President Obama's Faith Council - Missing in Action When We Need them Most

2009-11-15T14:52:22Z

Obama's Council on Faith Based Partnerships has fallen off the map - and we need them back. Nothing exemplifies the sad lack of contribution of this much hailed diverse group of religious leaders than the current impasse on Health Care with the Stupak Abortion amendment.

Even before President Obama took office he was assembling a team of religious leaders from a wide range of backgrounds to advise him as he proposed to tackle difficult issues such as poverty reduction, health care, war and other moral questions of governance. Many of us were excited about the prospect of Obama's Faith Council which included such theologically and politically diverse names as Father Snyder of Catholic Charities, Rabbi Saperstein of the Reform Action Committee, Dr. Frank Page former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Dr. Sharon Watkins, General Minister of the Disciples of Christ.

Unlike in the past, Obama's Faith Council was allotted no money to dispense so it was relieved of the political nightmare of accusations of favoritism and could focus on policy questions. The promise of this group lay in its diversity. The idea being that if this group could come to some consensus on the important moral issues of the day that it would help inform President Obama's administration to enact policy that reflected, by proxy, the religious wisdom of the vast majority of the American population.

Unfortunately, after a much-publicized announcement and launch, the group has basically been silent. Apparently the Council is working on a "report" to give to the President sometime next year on the various areas they have been assigned to investigate. This seems like a classic blow off - "Yes, faith leaders, why don't you go write a report. I look forward to glancing at it."

The issues that need moral guidance are on the table now! By its silence, the President's Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is acquiescing to its own irrelevancy. Most Americans and policy makers have assuredly forgotten the council exists - but not those of us who really believed in the possibilities of the group.

The 'Urgency of Now' includes finding a way to a health care bill, address questions of unemployment and foreclosures, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, torture and even balancing gay marriage with freedom of religion. The time will never be more urgent for the Council's moral voice on these questions.

Cross posted from Beliefnet's Progressive Revival

Clinton: Happy To Talk To Palin Over Coffee (VIDEO)

2009-11-15T14:22:34Z

WASHINGTON (Associated Press) — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she would be happy to talk to Sarah Palin over coffee.

In an interview for broadcast Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Clinton says she's never met the one-time GOP vice presidential hopeful and former Alaska governor and thinks it would be very interesting to sit down and talk with her.

Clinton was responding to a question about a passage in Palin's new book. Palin writes that if she and Clinton ever meet for coffee, "I know that we would fundamentally disagree on many issues." But Palin says, "my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail."

Clinton, in Singapore for a meeting of world leaders, says she's ready to have a cup of coffee and maybe she could make a case on some of the issues on which the two women disagree.

TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads

2009-11-15T13:41:56Z

Hello. My name is Jason and welcome to your liveblog of this weeks' Sunday Morning blather latherings. Our emanations today? The likely key topic of discussion will be the recent decision of the Obama administration to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- hereafter to be referred to by his media-ready short-hand handle, KSM -- in New York City, in one of our fine courts. This decision overjoys me! At last, the terrorism discussion is being passed into the hands of some citizens who may prove to be adults!

Of course, today, you should expect no end of mau-mauing of thise decision, from people who've screwed on their oh-so-serious faces and who speak with the distinct dialect of one who hails from a region where people routinely get the issues of the day all wrong. They'll talk about KSM as if he were some hypnotic criminal mastermind, sure to win converts from the city that's been triumphantly nodding their heads for the past few months to Jay Z's "Empire State Of Mind." And they'll say that a trial brings security risks, as if terrorist madmen have quashed their beef with us, for just existing. Mostly, you'll hear about how a trial in open court opens up the possibility we might lose the case, as if the only justice worth having is the kind they dole out in Iran.

They'll be so super serious about it, too! So much so, that next week, when they're all talking about Sarah Palin (a lady from Alaska who's apparently had it SUPER-HARD, and that someone really should give a fair shake to, maybe), you're going to wonder to yourself, "Self? Was last weeks outpouring of serious concern just a lot of grandstanding from vapid jerks who just wanted to vampirically politicize the issue? The answer will be yes.

For a long time, now, I've been itching for this nation to have the opportunity to place our raison d'etre in an open hearing alongside the nihilism of terrorism just to expose the latter's hollowness and remind the world that the American argument contains multitudes and is truly worthy of emulation. I was trying to categorize and codify the way in which having this trial is a virtue for our nation last night, when I came across this, from Spencer Ackerman, which puts the matter precisely the way I was going to, anyway:

What's an actual insult to the victims of 9/11 is the idea that America is not strong enough to withstand the blatherings of a mass murderer. For me, the prospect of KSM grandstanding at his trial falls into I-wish-a-motherfucker-would territory. I want to hear how KSM builds a case against America, because everyone will hear how laughably conspiratorial and clownish it is. Think of what a cathartic moment it will be when America sees the face of the man considered to be UBL's most efficient henchman and he delivers a pitiful harangue to a bank of cameras. No one will be emboldened to do anything but laugh. The only downside will be his inevitable discussion of how CIA operatives tortured him.

My hope for the KSM trial is that it does more than all this. It should forever shatter the pernicious myth that al-Qaeda is composed of supermen -- supermen against whom America has no choice but to alter its character and most precious laws in order to confront. I suspect we'll have an Eichmann-in-Jerusalem moment -- and sorry for the unfortunate Nazi/al-Qaeda analogy; al-Qaeda are not the Nazis; but I couldn't really think of any other parallel -- except instead of the banality of evil, we'll see the lunacy and vanity and self-absorption of it. That's because al-Qaeda's weltanshauung depends on a myth that holds America to be implacably determined to snuff out the glory of Islam. In reality, most Americans couldn't give a fuck about Islam and only started to know the first thing about it because of 9/11. But that America -- an America bearing no resemblance to the actual America -- will be what KSM seeks to counter-indict. It's farcical, and farcical in ways that can only benefit the real America.

Yeah, what he said. Anyway, you know the drill, feel free to send an email or leave a comment or join me on Twitter. And now, for this:

Fox News Sunday

Rudy Giuliani, who became some sort of terror expert after bumbling around lower Manhattan in a daze on September 11, 2001, is on today, to tell us all about how we're going to die as a result of our justice system. Rudy seems to think that it's unusual for criminals to be tried in the district where their crimes are committed, and that it's a tacit admission on the Obama administration's that the war on terror is over. What message is sending more troops to Afghanistan going to send? WHO KNOWS.

Rudy doesn't agree with Mayor Bloomberg either, except for the part about NYC being great and the police being awesome. Why can't these guys be tried in military tribunals, like other terrorists. The better question is why can't those terrorists be tried in open court, like KSM. The answer is the bad news side of this equation: KSM and his cohorts are not being tried in a tribunal because it's extremely likely they'll lose the case anyway. In the other terror cases, we apparently need to stack the deck to get convictions. Rudy basically thinks that having held trials before was a terrible mistake and that everything would have been fine if we hadn't done so, 9/11 wouldn't have happened? I guess?

Chris Wallace reminds Rudy of some things he said, years ago, some of which Amanda Terkel compiled:

In fact, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani praised the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers:

-- "'It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,' he [Giuliani] said, 'that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.'" [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

-- "[M]any who were bruised by the traumatic event were certain that no verdict by a jury or punishment by a judge will exorcise the pain and terror that remain. ... Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict 'demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon -- the law.'" [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

-- "I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead," said Giuliani. [CBS Evening News, 3/5/94]

Even in the weeks after Sept. 11, Giuliani "framed the attacks in the language of crime, describing the hijackers as 'insane murderers' and calling for restoration of the 'rule of law.'"

What's happened since then? Well, Giuliani's become a weasel-faced git, for one thing, and a demagoguery-by-request fountain of blither for the GOP. But seriously, y'all? Terrorists done came to these shores and de-swaggered him, but good. No wonder he spent the whole 2008 campaign hiding in Florida. So, now, instead of his past principles, we get this coward-marm slurping out of his mouth.

"This choice is a better choice for the terrorists...we were wrong in 1993." Giuliani is prattling with a distinct whine of desperation, and even Chris Wallace is jumping at the taste of blood. "This seems to be an over concern with the rights of terrorists!" Yes! SO CONCERNED THAT THEY'LL SHOVE THEM IN FRONT OF NEW YORK JURY AND ASK: "Okay, please tell the court why they all should die, and why, exactly?"

Giuliani goes on to call the Nidal Hasan shootings a "terrorist attack" because of Hasan's business cards, which read "Son of Allah." WHAT A CONSIDERATE TERRORIST.

Anyway, Jack Reed is here to restore calm. Wallace asks him if this decision is just an attempt on the Obama administration to stick it to the Bush administration. Reed says, no, if anything, it follows upon the Bush administration's decision to try Moussavi in civilian court. Reed says, "What was a statesmans-like decision on the part of the Bush administration can't be a political decision from the Obama administration."

Reed counters Giuliani's contention that we are "granting KSM's wish" to be tried in NYC by pointing out that a military tribunal will reinforce the image that KSM has attempted to carve out for himself as a "holy warrior" -- the preference being to try him as a common thug. Reed doesn't think Giuliani's contention is correct. "When the foreman of that jury stands up and delivers the verdict, not empowered by religious fanaticism but by the Constitution, [KSM] will know he's lost, and I can't think of a better group of people to judge the guilt or innocence than the people who saw the Towers fall."

What's the upside to having it in New York? Reed says, "This is an opportunity to show we're better than they are." Reed points out that the risks that critics have brought up did not come into play in Alexandria, during the Moussavi trial.

Chris Blakely writes:

After watching his performance on FOX News Sunday this morning, one would be hard pressed to believe that Rudy Guiliani first rose to prominence as a federal prosecutor. For a man with an extensive legal background, Rudy is sure quick to trade the "rule of law" for personal aggrandizement. Let the campaign for governor of New York state begin!

Oh, right. It's an election year, isn't it?

Mitch McConnell is here now. Will he try to block the trials? He can't. Can he stop the administration from putting terrorists in a prison in Illinois? McConnell says it will be a huge issue in the Senate election, and he'll try to block funding for it. Best we continue to pretend that these dime-a-dozen detainees have MAGICAL TERROR POWERS. Keep them in AZKABAN!

He'll try to stop or delay or ruin health care reform, too. He's under the impression that the "American people" don't want it passed, when what the America people want is something like the House bill passed, as quickly as possible please! But most health care reform supporters don't come from the "good" parts of America, I guess.

McConnell does go to lengths to explain how legislation works, to Chris Wallace, who doesn't seem to understand that the "Stupak Amendment" is in the House bill, and McConnell sits in this body called "the Senate" and they have their own bill.

Anyway, more lies about the government "taking over one-sixth of the economy."

And then, Afghanistan. McConnell will be happy to support a LOLSURGEOMGZ, so why won't Obama make with the LOLSURGING? Is it because General Stanley McChrystal said, "OH HAI WE NEED A WHOLE NEW STRATEGY HERE, AND YEAH, MAYBE MORE TROOPS, BUT A NEW STRATEGY IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, PLEASE GET IT RIGHT AND THEN WE'LL RESOURCE IT" but all the members of the GOP and the media didn't hear any of that stuff about a new strategy and instead started squawking "SURGESURGESURGE" like a passel of idiot seagulls?

McConnell seems to think the National Senatorial Campaign Committee "does not make endorsements." And that Sarah Palin doesn't need his advice. Does anyone? Anyway. Panel time. With Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney!

Also Mara Liasson and Juan Williams are there.

Bill Kristol says that the decision to send KSM to NYC is crazy. And he seems to be not clued in to the fact that the Attorney General acts independently of the White House...but then why would he know that! Basically, WHAT IF KSM GETS OFF AND OPENS A BODEGA ON YOUR BLOCK. IT COULD HAPPEN.

Liasson points out that 100% of terror suspects that have been tried in New York have been convicted, and will showcase our awesome justice system.

What worries Liz Cheney the most? OH LET ME WHINE FOR A MINUTE, CHRIS WALLACE, ABOUT THE DITHERINGS! WHERE IS THE LOL SURGE. Know what worries Liz Cheney the most? Her father's incompetence being exposed. Anyway, there's this insanity: She says KSM asked to be executed for Allah months ago, and that we should have accomodated him. YES! LET'S BE SURE TO ACCORD KSM PRECISELY THE MYSTIC MARTYR STATUS HE CRAVES. Good idea, Liz.

Anyway: FEARMONGERING. The defendants will "mock" people, and "preach jihad" and find out what happened to JFK and the Roswell aliens. Liz Cheney is Paranoia In A Red Pantsuit.

Now she and Bill Kristol are fighting over who can demagogue this matter the hardest. The saddest thing is that they get to pretend that these concerns are sincere. Anyway, that was absurd. Coming up after the break, let's promote Sarah Palin's book! See how quickly we shed all that faux concern?

The topic of Palin reminds by the way that Bill Kristol is wrong about everything and everyone. Today, Kristol says "she had to address her problems with the McCain campaign." By the way, if you are interested in the "agenda" she lays out in the book, it's in the last Chapter, which I've read, and it's bleak, deterministic hooey about man being "fallen" and not perfectable, so public policy intended to ameliorate social problems are complete bunk, in her opinion, and the government exists solely as some dire father figure. If you are poor, you should know your place, accept your burdens gladly and take solace in the wonder and beauty of God's creation, which is better than, say, affordable health care. IT IS SOME GRIM AND HOPELESS SHIT, PEOPLE.

OH FOR REAL, WE ARE MAKING SOMETHING OUT OF OBAMA BOWING TO SOMEONE OUT OF POLITENESS? American presidents vomit in Japanese people's shoes, I guess. Anyway, Obama truly pissed away our cultural hegemony this weekend!

I was saying the other day that the guy who delivers Chinese food to me is a sweet old man who always bows, like, FIVE TIMES while I am signing the check. And believe me, like Bill Kristol likes, I always shout, "THAT'S RIGHT! YOU TAKE IT, OLD MAN! AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM LIVES HERE, IN THIS WALK UP!"

But I always tip twenty percent, so I guess it's a wash!

THIS WEEK

More Giuliani awaits me, because I am just insanely unlucky. At least in that limited, "What does my job require me to watch on teevee, sort of luck."

Hillary Clinton is in Singapore today, where they've lit her better than most guests on THIS WEEK. HRC backs up the administration by capturing the ongoing discussion over Afghanistan as a judicious approach. "I understand that there will be people who are...unconvinced, but I think the majority of Americans will understand that the President went the extra mile."

But what's up with this Karl Eikenberry fellow, who's NOSURGING when everyone else is all LOLSURGING? HRC won't comment on "confidential advice to the President," but "we agree that our goal here is to defeat al Qaeda...we understand that the Afghans need help." But, she says, the highest priority is serving the interests of America. She says that now that the Afghan election "is over," the administration is looking for greater government involvement and competence from Karzai down to the local level.

But what concrete steps must Karzai take to earn our trust? HRC says there needs to be accountable ministries, mechanisms to fight corruption and crime, and results that match the "blood and treasure" that we invest. But the top priority is to keep Afghanistan from becoming a "safe haven" for terrorists.

Also: off-ramps? Driveways? Turnpikes? In Afghanistan, can we at last, build parkways on which we can park. Driveways on which we can drive? Traffic circles, that confuse evildoers?

Meanwhile, what about that Rudy Giuliani fellow? With the missing testicles? Who's afraid of trials? HRC says, "My goal is to make [these defendants] pay the ultimate price...I'm not going to second guess the attorney general."

How does she feel about the fact that Sarah Palin said some nice things about her? GS asks if she's "fishing for a coffee date." HRC says, "I've never met her." Neither have your Sunday morning interlocutors. As for whether the media treated Palin poorly, she says, "I'll save that for my book, if I write another one."

Also, the rumor of HRC running for governor of New York is "dead," she says. That's right! It's an election year.

Okay, Rudy of the Non-Existent Swag is back on my teevee. He's coy about running for office as well. He's not leaning for or against running, but he will "focus on it," very "soon."

Anyhoozles, GS goes through the same questions that Rudy's already been asked: there are better alternatives to a civilian trial in NYC that don't make Rudy wet his pants with fear, trying KSM in NYC isn't AOK because it creates an SRO audience for his BS -- which is MAGICAL and can TRANSFORM MEN'S MINDS with thoughts of jihad. KSM will no doubt use his silver tongued nihilism to turn Derek Jeter into an Islamofascist!

"I'm troubled by the symbolism," Rudy says, apparently thinking that being "afraid of symbolism" is a great place to mount a run for the governor's office.

"The administration has been very slow to come to a conclusion that Major Hasan is a terrorist," Rudy says. That's probably because "conclusions" only come out when "ongoing investigations" come to them. But, let's just let it be known that Rudy has bought in fully to the most melodramatic read of the Fort Hood massacre.

GREAT. So, my blog engine ate my liveblogging of the THIS WEEK panel. So now I get to go back and watch it again. FIE ON THE INTERNETS. This is the worst.

Anyway, to recap. The panel has George Will, David Brooks, David Corn, Gwen Ifill, and Bob Woodward.

KSM Trials: Will says that the trial in NYC is "not a bad choice" and that law enforcement techniques are being used all the time to fight terror, and should be respected. Corn says that we've won convictions in terror trials and it's important to show the world in an open way that we can do this. Brooks thinks that the trial is an "international reality show" and a propganda tool for terrorists. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT TRIALS HAVE BEEN USED EFFECTIVELY TO PREACH THE BENEFITS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

They waterboarded the bejeezus out of KSM, too, remember? Which is why Liz Cheney wants KSM tried in a star chamber, for the glory of the motherland and the hopes that her father's incompetent wretchedness never comes to light.

KSM is a narcissistic personality who likes to make a big show of himself in longwinded missives, says David Brooks, a narcissistic personality who likes to make a big show of himself in longwinded missives.

WOOT! George Will namechecks the Rosenbergs! I think we're supposed to down our Sazeracs now!

Afghanistan: have you heard? Bob Woodward is writing a book about Afghanistan and it will be the most important book about Presidents and Afghanistan and meetings and placesettings and sweaters and details ever written, so buy a million copies! GOING NOT ROGUE AT ALL, I think it's called.

George Will reminds us that Afghanistan is EXPENSIVE, like the biggest Hype Williams music video of all time, with jet skis and lamay streamers and fish eye lenses, except you can die a million different ways, and also OPIUM IS EVERYWHERE? So, there's that.

Will is skeptical that we can "provide for the needs of Afghanistan" through the Karzai government given that those needs include "electricity" and "potable water" and massive illiteracy, which you need to do things like, HAVE A AFGHAN POLICE FORCE. David Brooks is all: NO CAN MAKE MINIMALIST WAR! TURN WAR SWITCH TO "ALL" AND GO GO GO!

"What does Joe Villager think?" Brooks asks. "Is he going to get a set of vases, at the Pottery Barn?" Will you please buy Joe Villager's opium? Or at least promise to fight fewer of your massive global geo-political conflicts in his backyard? ALSO: I MEAN IT I HAVE A SPECIAL ON OPIUM. David Corn points out that the problem with pledging an "open ended commitment" to a war that you want an exit strategy for is what they call a contradiction.

Where does it end? Will says we LOLSURGE to 20K. Brooks says we send the 30K. Woodward says that the president doesn't know yet, and is hoping to get "good answers." Corn says that the tensions between McChrystal and Eikenberry create a situation where the political response is typically an attempt to split the difference.

Will thinks that the Afghanistan decision is "tangled up in health care," and the hope that he can get shot of that debate before making a commitment to the escalation.

David Brooks, on Palin: "She's a joke...I can't take her seriously." And a Palin presidential nomination "will never happen." Ifill says that Palin is "a shiny flashing thing." WHICH MAKES HER THE MOST PRECIOUS MEDIA COMMODITY IN THE WORLD. David Corn says that "the more serious she is taken" by various serious Republicans, the more people will think of Republicans as a joke.

Will says, "Some people think that in Palin, the GOP has found their William Jennings Bryan...why you'd want someone who lost three times is beyond me." Ifill says, "Don't underestimate her."

Corn says, "The question is, does America want a rogue President?" PALIN IS AN ALUMINUM BALLOON, ROCKETING ACROSS THE SKY. DOES SHE HAVE A CHILD ON BOARD WITH HER? DOES SHE?!

Meet The press

Hopefully, I'll have no more internet problems, because GAH. The thought of rewinding this show causes my TiVo literal pain.

"SNL" Comes Down On Obama Administration For Caving On Public Option (VIDEO)

2009-11-15T12:44:29Z

"SNL" Opened last night with sketch mocking Joe Biden, the Obama administration, and concessions they've made to get the health care bill passed. "The president wants to pass a health care bill so bad that he will literally sign anything. You can water it down however you like--as long as it's a stack of paper with the words 'health care' on it he'll sign it," an eager Biden said from the Oval Office while President Obama is abroad.

Vice President Biden (played by Jason Sudeikis) went on to run down other concessions they're willing to make in order to get the bill passed. "For those Republicans who want the bill to protect doctors from medical malpractice suits, you win, we'll agree to a provision that makes it illegal to ever sue a doctor." He also agreed that no copies of the bill would be printed in Spanish, and that the first Republican senator to cross the aisle and sign the bill would get a secret provision attached that can be anything from banning gay marriage to making it illegal to be Nancy Pelosi.

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!

Lincoln Mitchell: Obama and Charges of Elitism-Again

2009-11-15T10:34:18Z

President Obama's most enduring political weakness has been his relative difficulty connecting with working class white Americans. He won the Democratic nomination in 2008 by building a coalition based around African Americans and white liberals. The economic collapse and the widespread anger at President Bush, pushed a lot of working class white voters towards Obama in November of 2008, but this was a brief alliance, rather than a strong gesture of support.

It is, therefore, to be expected that the charge of elitism continues to dog President Obama, and will likely to do so throughout his presidency. Apparently, Obama's education, belief in the import of education, his understated, and often intellectual verbal style, his comfort in academic settings and his fluency on issues ranging from alternate energy to healthier eating make him suspect in the eyes of some. People like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and others who are seeking to build a party based on resentment and frustration are wise to exploit Obama's style and to suggest that it indicates he does not care about real Americans. This is an unavoidable part of politics and is certainly not a new Republican approach.

There is, however, something strangely appealing about this argument, even for people who should know better. The temptation to attribute Obama's, and the Democratic Party's, failings to this elitism and lack of concern for working class white voters is strong, even among some progressives. Hillary Clinton's ill conceived effort to reposition herself as the voice of these voters late in the 2008 primary season, was just one example of this, but there are others as well. The problem with this view is not that white working class voters should not be represented, particularly by a Democratic president. They should. It is that too often characteristics are attributed to these voters that are condescending and insulting.

Creating policies that meet the needs of white working class voters who are being hit very hard by the economic crisis, struggling to keep or find jobs, concerned about health care and how to pay for the children's education, should be a top priority of any president, and are among the issues upon which Obama has focused on most during his presidency. Creating policies, or political appeals, that assume these voters are intolerant, angry and will quickly abandon the Democratic Party if it supports gay marriage or talks too much about alternate energy or the need to use more fuel efficient cars, not only is counter-productive for the party, but supports ugly stereotypes about working class white voters as angry and intolerant. There certainly are voters in this group that fit this description, but as the last several decades of American history has shown us, they aren't voting Democratic. There are also white working class voters that are gay or lesbian, or have gay or lesbian friends and family, who see the environmental damage around them and who are worried about the future and who otherwise share the same concerns and priorities of many more educated or affluent Americans. Talking down to white working class voters, indulging their anger and, at times, intolerance is not the way forward for President Obama or the Democratic Party.

There is also an implied racism in this argument because it often makes assertions about all working class people, or even union members, which ignore the views of non-white workers, thus implying that the American working class is all white. This is obviously false as the American working class, and union movement, is racially diverse. African American union members, for example, seem to have no problem relating to President Obama, so if an assertion is made that Obama is not doing well among union members, the qualifier "white" is assumed, as if the speaker is suggesting that white union members somehow matter more.

Supporters of Obama, and progressives more broadly, should push back against this critique for two main reasons. First, educated liberals played a central role in the election of President Obama so it should be okay for him to make policy with those voters in mind. Ironically, appearances and style aside, Obama has not done much for this constituency. The Afghanistan policy, the foot dragging on gay marriage and the constant attempts at bipartisanship are examples of where Obama's educated liberal base has not gotten what it wants. Second, many of Obama's biggest legislative priorities, such as the stimulus package and the health care reform, seek to address the needs of working class voters very directly. Similarly, his failures to, for example, influence the economy enough to generate needed jobs hits Obama's base, African American voters, at least as hard as the white working class.

The right wing will continue to call Obama elitist, and seek to drive a wedge between him and angry voters of all demographic groups until the day he leaves office, and probably beyond that. The elitist card is very powerful, but ultimately reveals more about how the right wing elite, there's that word again, feels about a politician, than anything about that politician.

Obama Bows In Japan To Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

2009-11-15T07:36:21Z

In a scene that will likely be replayed on Sunday's political talk shows, President Obama bowed deeply to the Emperor and Empress of Japan on Saturday. The president's kowtow to the royal couple came on the second day of his Asian tour and before a private lunch with the pair in Tokyo.

An unnamed, senior Obama administration official told Politico Saturday that the president was observing protocol, saying, "I think that those who try to politicize those things are just way, way, way off base." During his speech in Tokyo, President Obama reaffirmed the United State's alliance with Japan and called himself America's first Pacific President.

In April, the president was criticized by the National Republican Senatorial Committee for bowing to Saudi King Abdullah at a G-20 meeting. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declined to call Obama's gesture to Abdullah a bow, instead saying Obama "bent over" to shake hands with the king.

Anticipating drama, the Los Angeles Times wrote a blog entry Saturday about the bow. The LA Times detailed former Vice President Dick Cheney's (non-bow) handshake with the Japanese emperor and pointed to the "comedic" drama surrounding former Presdient Clinton's bow to Akihito.

WATCH:

PHOTOS:

Abortion Rights Groups Scramble In Stupak Amendment's Wake

2009-11-15T07:15:00Z

WASHINGTON — Abortion rights groups, outflanked and outnumbered in the health debate, are scrambling to regain lost ground after the House passed a health bill with strict abortion limits.

They're blanketing Capitol Hill with lobbyists, petitions, letters and phone calls in efforts to defeat the restrictions in the Senate, where debate could begin in a few days. They also have a larger goal: to prove that with their Democratic allies in control of the White House and both congressional chambers – but increasingly appealing to conservative voters who back abortion limits – they still have clout.

It's an uphill battle after the House approved health legislation that bars a new government-run insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases or rape, incest or peril to the life of the mother, and prohibits any health plan that receives federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage.

Lawmakers who back abortion rights watched helplessly, lacking the votes to prevail, as fellow Democrats who oppose abortion joined with Republicans to put the curbs in place, prodded to action by Catholic bishops and anti-abortion rights groups. Then they voted en masse for the final health bill, in a move quickly hailed by President Barack Obama as "historic."

"Our phones were ringing off the hook," said Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, who hosted a hastily called strategy meeting last week where abortion rights and women's groups scrambled to regroup. "We're not going to have health care reform off the backs of women – this isn't what we've all spent our lives for."

By the time prominent abortion rights supporters were summoned to the White House's West Wing on Wednesday to meet with top aides, they were livid – although the president's team was quick to point out that their ire shouldn't be directed toward Obama.

We're your friends and the president is pro-choice, chief of staff Rahm Emanuel reminded the group of 15 or so women. There's no need for anger here, senior adviser and Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett offered, according to people knowledgeable about the session, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussion was confidential.

Still, the episode exposed a rift the health debate has opened between a president and Democratic congressional leaders and a key interest group struggling to maintain its influence.

Like other such special interests, abortion rights groups rely on pitched policy battles on high-profile issues to raise money and energize supporters, and the health debate offers an opportunity to do just that.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. Early on, the organizations had opted to stay quiet on the abortion funding issue for fear of making a politically tricky negotiation over a health care overhaul even harder.

"We were trying to diffuse the situation, knowing that the time to fight on the notion of federal funding for abortion was not this political moment – the health care reform bill is hard enough. Now I'm thinking we might have recognized that we were going to have this fight, and we should have stood firm a year ago and we might not have found ourselves here," said Laura MacCleery, director of government affairs at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The organizations gave tacit but grudging approval earlier this year to a proposal by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., that would have allowed the new government-run insurance plan or private plans offered in the new exchange to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only private dollars. It was an attempt to apply an existing law known as the Hyde amendment – it bars federal funding for abortion in Medicaid, the health program for the poor – to the new health care regime.

The House-passed measure goes much further, effectively requiring women buying health insurance with their own money to purchase abortion coverage through a separate supplemental plan, as a so-called rider on the policy.

Obama has said he wants to find a middle ground that preserves the status quo of denying federal funding for abortions but doesn't restrict women's insurance choices.

In the meantime, though, some abortion rights champions are threatening to take down the president's top priority over the issue.

"These are our friends – I don't think that anybody wants us to be on opposing sides," said Terry O'Neill of the National Organization for Women, who attended this week's White House session but declined to comment on the exchange. But her group's position, she said, is that "we would rather have no health care (overhaul) than a vicious abortion law."

Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America, who also went to Wednesday's session but would not comment on it, said Obama's team is well aware that her group is deeply disappointed with the House-passed limits and is counting on the Senate to roll them back.

"We fully expect them to stand with us as this battle continues," Keenan said. "They know the message loud and clear."

NARAL says it has begun a major grass-roots mobilization, including collecting more than 40,000 signatures on a petition addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., demanding that he omit the abortion curbs from health legislation he's drafting.

The group is sending out automated calls in 17 states to connect abortion rights supporters at the touch of a button to senators who are seen as potential swing votes on the issue, asking them to oppose the "abortion ban." Phone banks by nine NARAL state affiliates are pitching in, targeting their calls to states including Nevada, home to Reid, who opposes abortion rights and is facing a potentially tough 2010 re-election fight.

"All politics are local. They've got to hear from their constituency at home," Keenan said. "Those are the folks that elect them and re-elect them."

Obama Tax Break Will Have BIG Benefit For Home Builders, Industry With Role In Meltdown

2009-11-15T06:36:45Z

tucked inside the law was another prize: a tax break that lets big companies offset losses incurred in 2008 and 2009 against profits booked as far back as 2004. The tax cuts will generate corporate refunds or relief worth about $33 billion, according to an administration estimate.

Thomson Illinois Residents Welcome Gitmo Detainees: 'It Would Help The Businesses Here'

2009-11-15T06:07:16Z

News that the federal government seems interested in transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Thomson Correctional Center was greeted warmly in this small, rural farm town along the Iowa border.