Sarah Palin on The Huffington Post

Reese Schonfeld: "Informed Sources": What Really Happened When Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin Got Into Upstate New York Politics

2009-11-08T19:50:04Z

As New York residents know, ever since Governor Spitzer got caught in the wrong hotel room, Albany has been in turmoil. The latest tempest involved the 23rd Congressional district where, to the astonishment of the political establishment, the Republican candidate was forced out of the race because of her positions on gay and abortion rights. Her departure left the field wide open for the Conservative Party nominee.

Who forced her out--Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the other far-right Conservatives, who argued that a woman who supported abortion rights and gay marriage should not run be on the Republican ticket. (The Democratic candidate won, but that's beside the point.) The question is why did the Republican Party drop its own nominees and abandon out the race?

The answer (according to "informed sources"): former NY Governor George Pataki brokered a deal in an attempt to sew up his nomination on the Conservative line if he runs for the Senate in 2012. After the deal was announced Pataki made a statement in support of the Conservative candidate and campaigned for him. Pataki had been backed by the New York Conservative Party when he ran for Governor, but he was perceived as relatively "moderate" during his three terms in office. According to my sources, Pataki's political ambitions are centered on a Senate run for the seat formerly held by Hillary Clinton and now, thanks to Spitzer's successor as Governor David Patterson, occupied by Kirsten Gillibrand, a former upstate Democratic Congresswoman.

How did she get the nod from Patterson? My sources suggest that former Republican Senator Al D'Amato, a close Pataki political ally, and now an equally close advisor to Democratic Governor Patterson, persuaded him to choose the little known Gillibrand over Caroline Kennedy (JFK's daughter). who had been expected to gain the appointment. Patterson's decision seemed abrupt and strange, and was certainly badly handled. The appointment brought upon him the wrath of many in the Democratic Party, and according to polls, has reduced his popularity with Democrats in the state to a mere 17%.

Who has it helped? Certainly George Pataki, Al D'Amato's close pal. Gillibrand, who has done a pretty good job as Senator, is a far less formidable opponent than Caroline Kennedy would've been if Pataki decides to run in 2012.

But still, why did Pataki broker the deal in the first place? The answer: he wants to ensure the support of the Limbaugh-Palin wing of the Republican Party; he doesn't want a challenge for the Senate spot on the Conservative Party line either. So according to my upstate New York "informed sources", the biggest winner in last Tuesday's New York election is George Pataki. Republicans may have lost a seat in the House of Representatives, but that's a small price to pay if they gain a Senate seat in 2012.

As for pro-tem Governor David Patterson, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is favored to win the Democratic nomination for Governor in 2010 and Patterson may be consigned to the dustbin of Albany history. It cannot come too soon.

Geoffrey Dunn: Palin Usurped "Concession" Speech

2009-11-07T15:22:24Z

In their new book Sarah From Alaska, Shushannah Walshe and Scott Conroy have provided drafts of two versions of a speech that vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin was to have delivered on Election Night 2008 in Phoenix--if only John McCain and his top brass, including Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter, had allowed her to do so.

Headlines reporting the story in the Los Angeles Times declared "Sarah Palin's Speeches Were Ready but Never Seen -- Until Now," while ABC posted its story as "Sarah Palin's Never-Heard Concession, Victory Speeches."

While Palin did not deliver her concession speech on election night, she did, in fact, deliver most of it, nearly verbatim, only eight days later at a meeting of the Republican Governors Association on November 13 in Miami, Florida.

Here are two examples:

Concession: My fellow Americans, tens of millions of you shared our convictions and gave us your votes. And I thank you for your confidence. For us, it was not our time ... not our moment. But it is our country ... the winner will be our president ... and I wish Barack Obama well as the 44th president of the United States.

RGA: Tens of millions of Americans shared our convictions and they gave us their votes. ... But for us, it was not our time. It was not our moment. But it is our country. And the winner will be our President. And I wish Barack Obama well as the 44th President of the United States.

***

Concession: I will remember all the young girls who came up to me to our rallies, sometimes taking off from school, just to see only the second woman ever nominated by a major party in a national election.

RGA: For years to come, I'm going to remember all the young girls who came up to me at rallies to see the first woman having the privilege of carrying our party's VP nomination.

Walshe and Conroy spin a fascinating account how Palin's concession speech, crafted by former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully and his associate Lindsay Hayes, became a final skirmish in what had become an ugly and open civil war between the McCain and Palin camps during the GOP campaign. It got so bad, according to Walshe and Conroy, that Schmidt ordered the lights be turned off on Palin, fearing that she would still try to deliver the speech and steal McCain's final dignity from him at the close of the campaign.

Palin clearly built her remarks at the RGA around those crafted by Scully and Hayes, whose salaries as speechwriters were paid for by the Committee to Elect John McCain. Virtually every thought or phrase in the Scully-Hayes concession speech made their way into Palin's RGA remarks. While Scully acknowledged that he was aware of their use, Palin did not notify McCain's top senior advisors that she was going to be hijacking these remarks at the RGA (one told me that he was completely unaware), even though they had been paid for by the campaign.

While Palin made a number of small changes to the original concession speech and added many additional comments to her RGA remarks, there was one significant change that she made in the eight days after they were crafted. The original read:

And when a black citizen prepares to fill the office of Washington and Lincoln, that is a shining moment in our history that can be lost on no one.

In Miami she removed what, in the original context, was a rather awkwardly constructed, if not disturbing, racialized reference to Obama, to:

And as he prepares to fill the office of Washington and Lincoln, know that this is a shining moment in American history.

Few people beyond Scully probably were aware that Palin had incorporated the remarks into the RGA speech. "[Palin] was so polarizing," Walshe and Conroy conclude in what is an otherwise surprisingly empathetic portrait of Palin, "that she inspired a civil war within her own campaign during the final days before the election."

Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn's book The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power will be released by St. Martin's Press in spring 2010.

Palin Gridiron Dinner Guest, To Speak At Black-Tie Affair

2009-11-06T14:07:49Z

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will be the Republican speaker at the Gridiron Club's Winter Dinner on Dec. 5, the club announced Friday.

Gridiron Club President Dick Cooper told club members earlier this afternoon that Palin accepted an invitation to speak at the black-tie affair, according to a member of the club's executive committee.

Sarah Palin Tries To Keep Low Profile In Wisconsin

2009-11-06T11:45:02Z

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is set to deliver remarks at a Wisconsin Right to Life event Friday evening, one of the few speeches the former Republican presidential nominee will have given since she resigned the governorship last summer.

But Palin appears to be doing her best to keep a low profile on this trip: no press will be allowed into the Milwaukee auditorium where she will speak and those who have paid the $30 admittance fee are unable to carry in cell phones, cameras, laptops, or recording devices of any kind.

Tallulah Morehead: Survivor: Samoa: Macrame.

2009-11-06T09:32:45Z

This week, I was celebrating the anniversary of President Obama's defeat of Sarah Palin and some old guy whose name slips my mind (and his), by taking a listen to my old, old friend (I mean it, he's old!) Will Wixon's Obama victory song, Yes We Can, when I had to turn away from lovely thoughts and return for an hour to Samoa, for one twisty episode of Survivor: Samoa. As we will see, Jeff Probst had a narrow escape this week.

As night fell on the remains of Tribe Zsa Zsa, realizing the merge was coming soon, Russell dipped into the Survivor cliche glossary for "When we get over there, dude, game on, the game starts." What have they been doing for the last 18 days? Come to think of it, with their pitiful record of challenge losses, they truly have not been playing the game.

Russell told us, ""We're all working as a team. So I'm not really nervous about my numbers. I'm too good for this game, I'm too sly." That must be why he keeps losing challenge after challenge. And I assume the numbers that aren't worrying him are his cholesterol numbers, because his tribe is outnumbered two-to-one, which is not good.

Okay, I think, after last week's episode, I've worked out which brunette bimbo is Laura, and which is Monica. Monica is the semi-pretty one. Laura is the conservative Christer biker pastor/lobbyist, who doesn't think it's a woman's role to be a pastor to men. For a woman who rides a Harley, she seems otherwise to live in a century from before the invention of the internal combustion engine, or thought. The show calls her an "office manager," but she's actually coordinates 400 Evil Republican lobbyists in Oregon, and she - get this, and be prepared to heave - admires Sarah Palin! Palin is a role model for her! Yup, she's loathsome; you betcha.

She has worked out that Shambles hates her. Finally I've found some common ground with Shambles. The ironic part is, Laura and Shambles are both Harley freaks. (lambasted on this week's South Park as lame beyond words, well, beyond one particular word.) You'd think they could bond over their mutual pathetic need to ride around with a noisy chunk of hot metal throbbing between their legs.

When Laura was sentenced to spend a day with Zsa Zsa, Danger Dave gave her canteen to Shambles for "safekeeping." What was he thinking? Shambles can't walk across camp without losing chickens and snorkel mouthpieces. Sure enough. She lost Laura's canteen, maybe even accidentally. Shambles can lose anything except her ridiculous hairstyle.

Shambles keeps accusing Laura of being "90210." I'm not sure just what she thinks she means by that. Is she accusing Laura of being an airheaded teenager? Wrong. Laura is a 39 year old airheaded grandmother. (She must have started dropping her hellspawn young!) Does she think Laura is a zip code? I think, at root, she's accusing Laura of not being her, which is the only thing in Laura's favor. It's not just that Shambles inhabits her own weird universe. It's that she thinks other people do, or at least should, live in her private world as well. One thing I am certain of, though. Shambles doesn't like "90210."

Ah, at last we got to the root of it. Shambles: "It's almost like those popular girls in high school, that are cheerleaders, that want to snob their nose ..." ["Snob their nose"??? What the hell does that mean?] "... at people who don't fit into their circle. I'm done with her. I have no use for her. None." So, Shambles is projecting onto Laura all the resentment she nurtured towards her not-socially-backward peers back in high school, a quarter of a century before. But wait! Back in episode 1, when we first had the misfortune to meet Shambles, she said: "People have gravitated to me my entire life. It's like 'Oh my God. This chick rocks. We love her'." I expressed doubt over the veracity of this absurd statement at the time. Now we discover that she was, in fact, an outcast, uncool, ridiculed by the popular kids. That is far more believable.

But the irony here is, as a conservative Christer, Laura must have been every bit as uncool in school as Shambles. Shambles channeled her resentment into the Marines, and learning to kill people. Laura channeled it into Christianity, and learning to kill progressive political action. The great thing about this conflict is, I can't stand either of them, so it's a win-win battle for me.

Jaison is the master of understatement: "We're not super confident in our ability to win challenges anymore." He loses eight out of ten challenges, and suddenly he's not super confident anymore? Defeatist!

The Merge: At last, Galu and Zsa Zsa are no more. Time for the Merge Feast. All the hungry survivors were happy for the feast, but none more so than Shambles: "I am on top of the world, man." (If only she's said "Top of the world, Ma," so that, like darling Jimmy Cagney in White Heat she could be blown up.) "I'm in Heaven right now." Well, maybe Laura the Palin-wannabe could show her around. Laura can see earth from her house! Well, almost. Here's where we pray for all the babies roasting in hell forever because their parents weren't Christians, or at least, weren't the right variety of Christians. And over here is where we pray for the homosexuals being tortured in Hell for eternity, which is all of them. Isn't Heaven nice?

Shambles: "I'm on such a sugar high right now. My prayers were answered, totally." She prayed for sugar? Oh wait. Shambles took off 70 pounds to do Survivor. She probably does pray for sugar.

Jaison and Rocket Scientist John instantly bonded over both having brains and educations. Natalie told Danger Dave that Russell was "the best crab catcher." Won't medical give him a cream for those? He's creepy enough as it is.

Russell, watching his former ex-Zsa Zsasians working the former Galuvians, said, "We're steps ahead of them. We have our plan down." It doesn't occur to him that the Galuvians might be doing the exact same thing back. Russell's belief that he's outsmarting a tribe that has been kicking his ass for three weeks running is an almost amusing bit of egotistical self-delusion. "I can already see that I'm going to rule in this kingdom. I mean, come on, who gets grapes fed to them? The kings do!" Actually Russell, I used to feed grapes to my dog. You're a lot mangier than he was, and he was housebroken.

Natalie, on arriving at the Galu camp: "The Galu camp? I love it. It's awesome. I feel like I'm at the Hilton." Would that be the Black Hole of Calcutta Hilton? I have to assume Natalie has never set foot in a real Hilton. Watching Natalie bond with Laura Palin was making me ill, but then, watching anyone bond with that evil witch would make me ill. Natalie hasn't caught on to just what Laura Palin is yet, "It was really important for me to talk to Laura to find crack in this group." Natalie, conservative Christers are not the people to try and score crack from, not that that's a good idea anywhere with anyone. But Ms Palin's drug of choice is Jesus, "The Opium of the Masses."

They picked their new tribe name, "Aiga," pronounced I-ga, which Brett, in the third sentence he's spoken this season, told us means "extended family" in Samoan. Actually, facing the prospect of being in a tribe with Russell, Shambles and Laura, I'd go with the name "Igag."

Erik is completely aware of the ex-Zsa Zsasians plans. Russell assumes that he's five steps ahead of the Galuvians, but Erik is a step or two ahead of him, and both Russell and Erik have immunity idols in their pockets, unless they're just glad to see each other, and that hardly seems likely.

Now Russell initiated the bizarre second step of his plan. This one was harder to anticipate, because it's so bone-headed: showing people the immunity idol, to fake that he 'trusts" them. Immunity idols are only of any use if they're secret! Russell thinks this is brilliant strategy. It's actually just his compulsive need to brag.

First he showed it to Laura Palin. "You know what this is?" he said, pulling something out of his pants. Given her conservatism, he's lucky she didn't just scream and run away. You'd also think she'd remember that only four days before he had told her that Ben had had the idol and wasted it, so it was gone. Establishing that you lied to someone's face four days earlier seems to me to be an odd way to gain their trust.

He handed her this line of bull: that if she took him to the Top Seven (like it would be up to her), he would give her the idol, as a present. Only a complete moron would believe this. Oh wait. Laura admires and emulates Sarah Palin, a woman who really knows how to lose. She can believe anything, as long as it's idiotic. She probably believes dinosaurs lived with humans, which would explain Russell.

Laura: "Does anybody know you have it?"

Russell (lying like Dick Cheney under oath): Nope.

We've seen him show it to Jaison and Mick. He's done every thing short of wearing it around his neck. Laura, a woman accustomed to believing that virgins can give birth and carpenters can rise from the dead (Rise, Karen Carpenter, rise!), nonetheless, didn't fall for the "I'll give it to you" nonsense. She works with political lobbyists, where everything is quid pro quo. Also, she can count. (So she learned something in that seminary!) She knows she has numbers and he doesn't.

Russell made the condition that she could pick off any of his fellow Zsa Zsasians (Nice bit of treachery, that), but first, they had to pick off a Galuvian, as an offering of loyalty.

Laura: "That won't happen... It will be one of your guys, or [Shambles]." Sacrificing Shambles works for me. But the Russell-Laura alliance isn't happening. She now knows that they have to blindside Russell to get around his idol. (Good plan.)

Russell had his usual reaction when someone turns out to be too smart for him to manipulate (and Laura is an idiot): "Laura's digging her own grave. ... She might be the first to go." Works for me also, though Russell's belief that he's running the game when he has nothing to back it up with is getting increasingly deranged.

Russell trotted off to see if the same lame strategy would work with She-Who-Is-Not-Laura, a.k.a. Monica. Once again, out pops his idol. He can not keep it in his pants. Typical male.

Monica: "Does anybody else know you have this?"

Russell: "Nobody." Well, almost nobody. Well, not many. Well, not everybody. Well, my mother doesn't know. And I haven't told Shambles yet.

Since that Top Seven idea failed faster than a Zsa Zsa challenge effort, he upped it to Top Two with Monica, promising to give it to her if he knew she was on the chopping block.

Monica: "I'm in."

This time, Russell didn't buy it (and he was now wearing the idol around his neck, at least for his confessional interviews.), but he felt he could manipulate her into joining his new plan (about his fifth new plan this episode) to get rid of Laura.

Russell, like a greedy trick-or-treater determined to hit every house in his town, now scurried off to show the idol to Rocket Scientist John. Here was his line to John: "I'm telling you, dude, we can be in control of this game without them even knowing it."

Now follow this weird turn of events. Laura, the conservative Christer who wants to be the Oregon Sarah Palin, in short, a dangerous fool, understood that Russell was full of bull (though she hadn't the wit to let him think she fell for it). John, an educated scientist with a brain, fell for it. He assumed that Russell could see he was smarter than most of his tribemates (Admittedly, the chickens are smarter than Shambles. In fact, the one that got away had literally outwitted her.), and thus went only to him for an alliance. Vanity snared him.

So John is suddenly onboard with Russell's plan to oust Laura. Actually, so am I, but if Galu votes out one of their own, instead of a Zsa Zsasian, they're idiots. They need to press their number advantage while they have it.

But then, it's hard not to sympathize with wanting to get rid of Laura.

Next on Russell's alliance shopping list: Shambles. Russell's weird theory on why people trust him (those that do.): "I think it has a lot to do with my southern background. People trust The South." That is news to me. I "trust" The South to screw up elections, keep the religious wrong a political force, and ever pine nostalgically for slavery, but that's it. Ask Black America how much they "trust" The South.

But Russell only had to breathe the name Laura, and Shambles's hatred of her came gushing out, music to Russell's ears. When Shambles heard that Russell wanted Laura gone, she was as in love as she's ever been with any man. Shambles on Russell: "I trust Russell implicitly. The guy's definitely cut from the same cloth as me." He's secretly a formerly-obese military biker "chick" and warrior, with no brain nor guile? I'll give her this, like her, he's probably never dated a man, and he's almost as butch as she is. There is the small problem of his being, like the chickens, considerably smarter than she is.

Following Major Shambles's orders, Russell informed his Zsa Zsa mates to vote for Laura, which was a tad premature, since they hadn't even had the immunity challenge yet. Jesus could give Laura what Sarah Palin hasn't had in a while: a win, and all bets would be off.

Immunity Challenge: The challenge was a pretty simple game of hitting a ball off a tee into areas marked with different scores. The twist was, double immunity. One woman, and one man, would each win immunity. This was kind of a cool new slant. It increased Laura's chances of winning safety, and I think it doubled Shambles's odds, as I believe she was allowed to play for either or both. After all, along with being one of the butchest players there, the Galuvian guys had made her an "Honorary Dude," last week. (I'm assuming it's "honorary.")

All of Igag was calling Dave "Danger Dave," so I assume they were all reading these columns months before they were written. They were cheering him on. "Go, Danger Dave." Why? They each want to win. It's no longer a team game. You should want him to lose, not win.

"Baseball your game?" Jeff asked, although my limited knowledge of sports believes that teeing off towards a target area is more golf than baseball.

"No. Making love's my sport." Yeah? To whom? No wife. No girl friend. No known history with women. Former flight attendant with a degree in Opera. I'm not saying he's gay, mind you. He might be as straight as Niles Crane. And I might be Queen of the Oompa-Loopas. (And they must be gay!)

Jeff: "You play a lot?" Why do you ask, Jeff? Getting lonely out in Samoa?

DD: "Not enough." Now that I believe.

Rocket Scientist John won for the men.

I don't mean to be mean (Who am I kidding? Yes I do.), but Monica swings like a girl.

Kelly materialized out of the ether to play. Where's she been? She's such an obscure player, Russell hasn't even shown her his Never-Hidden Immunity Idol.

Super butch Shambles took a big, hefty swing, and fouled out. Several of the men went out of bounds too, but they did so by over-shooting it. Shambles hit what I'm told in baseball is called a "foul tip." (Named, I suspect, in honor of Russell's - ah - knob.)

Laura, the designated fall guy for this episode, went last. And Jesus came through. Unlike her idol, Sarah Palin, Laura squeezed out a victory.

"That sucked," said Shambles, "Because I really wanted her gone." That's what you get for doing all your plotting before the Immunity Challenge. But look at the bright side, Shambles. Now they could vote out you!

For that matter, blindsiding Russell would be a good idea, now that he's shown the immunity idol to the entire population of the South Pacific. I think he even went around the Dharma Initiative, making alliances with them, and they were all purged back in 1992.

Russell tried moving against Monica. That was an immediate no-go. She hasn't pissed anyone off yet. You have to know a player exists before you can vote them out, and so far Monica's identity has been simply "Not-Laura."

Laura blabbed to Erik that Russell has an idol. Oops. Now we see the flaw in Russell's tell-everyone-indiscriminately-you-have-an-idol strategy. They know to target you, even if only to get you to play it, and thus eliminate it. So much for "outwitting" Galu. Russell is Outwitlessing Galu.

The name Erik spelled with a K, the way Erik does, was also the name of The Phantom of the Opera, and true to his evil name, Erik's next plan was actually to target Jaison. (since, if Russell played the idol, the person with the second-highest vote count would go.) No! Not my beautiful Jaison. Who would I have to look at with him gone? I'm stuck watching the whole season to do these columns. Am I supposed to enjoy looking at Erik, with his motley excuse for a build? John, who is handsome, but seldom shirtless, and when he is, not really well-built. MickMoron? He actually has a nice body, but he's lamer and lamer with every passing episode. Danger Dave? Actually, I wish he'd wear more shirts. He has a singularly unattractive torso. Shambles? He never goes shirtless at all, and besides, a man who's just lost 70 pounds in the weeks immediately before going on the show is apt to look really horrible with his -- What's that, Dougie? Shambles is a woman? Oh right! Slipped my mind. It's an easy error. She's like a drag king. Between the aggressive stupidity and the Billy Ray Cyrus-15-years-ago hair, it's hard to tell. But my point is, leave Jaison alone!

Laura's reaction to Erik's plan to oust Jaison? "Perfect." Some Christian. They're not supposed to worship Satan!

When Erik took his plan to John, John tried deflecting it to Monica. Mind you, Erik told John that Russell had showed his idol to Laura, which means John now knows that Russell lied to him, yet he stuck to his Russell Plan of vote-out-the-women, or Shambles. (Have you noticed that all season, all of Russell's targets have been women? Is it just me, or is Russell one huge misogynist? The way he appears to hate women, it's clear he really is married! There's nothing like having a wife to turn a straight man into a woman-hater. Or maybe it's that, as a born bully, he naturally targets women because, like all bullies, he's a coward, and he's afraid of the men?)

John described the vote-out-Zsa Zsa strategy as "Junior Varsity Survivor," and while I disagree, it was a good, funny line. Hey John, I'll handle the jokes. You just fire off your rocket.

John won over Erik, who then went and suggested to Danger Dave and Brett to vote out Monica, and not to clue Shambles in at all. "Let her vote for whoever she wants. I don't give a sh** if she votes for Probst tonight." Now that would be one hell of a blindside. "And the ninth person voted out of Survivor; Samoa is me! Jeff, the tribe has spoken."

Danger Dave, captain of the Survivor Junior Varsity Squad, still wants to gun for Zsa Zsa, so now he's suspicious of Erik. The important thing is, the target is moving back off of Jaison.

Danger Dave thinks Erik is "a crafty, crafty guy." I'd be more impressed if Dave could have come up with a second adjective, but his degree is in opera, so maybe his adjective vocabulary is all in Italian, but he has a point. Erik spoke to Jaison, MickMoron, and Natalie, telling them all to vote for Monica, but not to tell Russell. The idea being to make Russell paranoid enough to use his idol, and flush it out. This is a really good plan, as long as their loyalty to Russell is non-existent.

This plan didn't sit well with Jaison, who proposed to MickMoron and Natalie that they say they'll do that, and instead, vote for Erik. Now I don't see where four votes for Erik would do much more than paint targets on them, since there will be eight other votes, most of them probably for Monica, but it is refreshing to see an episode where, going into the last quarter hour, I haven't any idea how this will play out. This vote is wide open.

So then Natalie tried selling voting for Erik to Laura and this Kelly person. Who is going to tattle to whom next?

Kelly went scurrying over to Monica, telling her of Erik's plot against her (although it was really John's idea), which got her onboard with voting out Erik.

Needless to say, Not-Laura was fine with not being voted out, and then they were off to Danger Dave. Dave was now all for it.

When Natalie brought this plan to Russell, his natural deviousness went into doublethink: "I don't think you talked them into it. I think you think you did."

I had to put up a bulletin board to make a mosaic, like on FlashForward, of who is plotting against whom, with threads leading from player to player for each separate plot, only by now, the threads were turning into a macrame plant holder.

Great moment: Danger Dave speaking to Shambles: "Kelly said the plan's changed. Tonight, Erik goes."

Shambles: "Who's Erik?" Shambles is stupid on an epic scale. Frankly, they should have just gone ahead and told her to vote for Probst.

Jaison warned Russell: "This could be a game to get rid of the idol." This, of course, is the perfect way to get that paranoid cretin to play the idol. My mosaic board threads are now in a Gordian Knot.

Russell: "This is the first time that I don't know nothin'." Not even to avoid using double negatives, though, knowing Russell, it was probably a lie. I'll bet he's known nothing many, many times. Russell now suspects that its all a diversion to blindside him. I'm beginning to anticipate a vote where every player except the two with immunity gets one vote each.

Tribal Council: For once, I had no idea what was going to happen, and apparently, neither does anyone else in Igag. As Jeff Probst watched them file in, he had no inkling that he might be blindsided at any moment, and he has no immunity. I could feel Tom Bergeron, lurking about, waiting to take over the show.

Not-Laura: "In this game, you never really know who to trust." Welcome to Life, Not-Laura.

Erik, now adding cocky to crafty, ran down all the Zsa Zsasians, noting how Russell has been working everyone, MickMoron has turned passive, and accepting of whatever happens to him, Natalie has just been trying to avoid stepping on toes, and Jaison hasn't "come together." Erik clearly feels he's running the game now, although the last fifteen minutes of airtime has shown that no one is running the game this week, and nobody has warned Jeff of his danger.

Jaison defended his game play, and Erik patronizingly said, "Well, I like that, you know, I like that in a player. If I was your coach, I would say that's what I like to hear." Erik seems to have forgotten he is not Jaison's, nor anyone else's, coach. Oxford graduate Jaison isn't taking this bull from a bartender.

Jaison: "I guess the point is, I don't care what you like." Snap! Jaison, when you're strong like that, you make my heart flutter.

Erik's patronizing attitude was making Jaison and Russell both smirk, though Russell may have tipped his hand too much when he said he would talk and strategize with each and every player up there to stay in the game, since most of Igag has noticed him doing just exactly that, except for Shambles, who was still trying to figure out who Erik is, and wondering if she can ask Jeff how to spell his name.

Russell, turning artistic, drew a happy face on his ballot beside Erik's name.

Lot's of suspense. Would Russell or Erik sense their danger and use their idols? And, of course, who voted for whom?

Russell leapt to his feet, and played his idol. He was now safe, but did he need to? Would there be enough Russell votes to have ousted him or has he wasted it? Either way, He'll be fair game in the future. Of course, there would have been no drive to get him to use his idol if he hadn't shown it to single every person in Samoa, and most of Hawaii as well.

We quickly learned that at least two members of Igag thought Jaison's name was "Jason." This was followed by learning that there was dissension in Igag as to whether it was spelled "Erik or "Eric." Kids, it's Erik with a K, not Liza with a Z, 'cause Liza with a Z goes zzz, not sss.

By the fourth vote for Erik, you could see that he was starting to regret not playing the idol then burning a hole in his pocket. On the fifth Erik vote, Shambles started looking puzzled, though whether this was because she thought someone else was to be voted out, or whether she still had no idea who Erik was, was not clear. In any event, watching Erik go from overconfident, to smugly amused, to mildly puzzled, to deeply alarmed to grimly disgusted, was sweet. Over-confidence is always the kiss of death on Survivor. And running around ordering people to vote this way or that is a sure way to get yourself ousted. And thus Erik became the first member of what will be a large jury. (In fact, it will be a jury of 10, an even number, which leaves me to suspect that they will only be going to a final 3, instead of a final 2, as only that will give them a jury of 9.) Erik walked off with his idol unplayed. Which means that both idols are gone now. No more hidden immunity.

Probst: "Well, your first vote as a new tribe, your first blindside. This is most definitely a new game." I've got to say. Jeff, it looks exactly like the same old game to me. We haven't seen a blindside since - well - last week.

In Erik's "Family Moment," someone I assume to be his dad said, "We need the money." Better get a job, Dad. Erik isn't bringing home the million.

The previews showed everyone turning on Russell (and about time too), and the idoless man desperate. This can only mean one thing. He'll win immunity next week, because they wouldn't have edited the previews to look like he was doomed if he was actually going to get eliminated. Drat!

For the record, Russell got no votes at all, so he utterly wasted his idol on paranoia, as Erik intended. Danger Dave, was one of the tribe members who misspelled "Eric," and the always-clueless Shambles was the second vote for Jaison. Dave told her the vote was for Erik. Did she not believe it, decided Erik's orders outweighed Dave's, forget who to vote for, or not believe there really was an "Erik"? We'll never know.

Cheers darlings.

To read more of Tallulah Morehead, go to The Morehead, the Merrier, or buy her book, My Lush Life.

Kirk Slammed From Right And Left For Courting Sarah Palin

2009-11-05T20:50:36Z

When word broke that self-described moderate Republican Mark Kirk was angling for kind words from Sarah Palin for his U.S. Senate bid, the response from his rivals was savage and uniform.

All three leading Democrats, as well as Kirk's Republican challenger, accused him of inconsistency, a criticism that has nagged Kirk ever since he backed away from his vote in favor of climate change legislation in June.

Kirk said he voted for the Democratic climate change bill because the constituents of his North Shore Congressional District wanted him to. As a senator representing an entire state, he said, he would vote against the same bill.

Kirk's rightward evolution was seen as an attempt to appeal to a Republican base that remained skeptical of his conservative bonafides. And while his courting of Palin could be seen as another effort to shore up support of the base, opponents seized on Kirk's snubbing of Palin during the 2008 presidential race as further evidence of his lack of conviction.

"Mark Kirk begging for Sarah Palin's endorsement makes it clear that he'll seek any endorsement, take up any policy position, and attempt any political maneuver that he thinks will get him more votes," state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, a leading Democratic candidate, said in a statement. "At the very best, this is shameless political pandering. At worst, it's further proof that Mark Kirk lacks the political courage to make the tough decisions to move our nation forward."

"What does Mark Kirk really believe?" asked Democratic candidate David Hoffman. "Last year he correctly called the addition of Sarah Palin to the McCain ticket a mistake. This year, when faced with a conservative primary challenge he is pandering to her. Kirk has again revealed his true colors: No principles, no standards, whatever it takes to win."

For Democrat Cheryle Robinson Jackson, Kirk's reaching out to Palin seemed to nix any claim he has to being a moderate.

"By openly soliciting Sarah Palin's blessing, Mark Kirk is showing Illinois his true colors," Jackson said in a statement. "Although he claims to be a moderate, Kirk is pandering to the extreme right wing of his party, and in so doing turning his back on the hard-working Illinois families who hope to change the way our government works and don't want to go back to the failed policies of the Bush Administration."

Republican candidate Patrick Hughes responded to Kirk's move to the right by trying to protect turf he wants to establish as his own-- by also accusing Kirk of pandering.

"I believe Mark Kirk, who has consistently supported President Obama's legislative agenda, including cap and trade legislation, is quickly realizing that Republican Primary voters do not share his extreme views," Hughes said in a statement. "In a desperate attempt to prove otherwise, he is seeking the endorsement of Sarah Palin, a true Reagan conservative, to help disguise his liberal voting record."

The Hughes campaign followed up on Thursday with poll numbers that it claims show that self-described conservatives overwhelmingly prefer Hughes to Kirk. According to their numbers, Kirk's favorable to unfavorable rating among conservatives is 2.7:1, compared with 9:1 for Hughes.

The Kirk campaign could not be reached for comment.

Kirk holds a vast lead over Hughes in both fundraising and name recognition. Recent polls show Kirk and Giannoulias nearly even in a hypothetical general election.

On Thursday, the Giannoulias campaign used Kirk's Palin memo to try drum up campaign contributions.

"We can't let Mark Kirk and Sarah Palin take us back to the failed, Republican policies that got us into this economic mess," an e-mail solicitation reads.

Palin has yet to say whether she will tout Kirk when she comes to Chicago to appear on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" Nov. 16.

UPDATE: The Giannoulias campaign wasted little time turning Kirk's Palin play into a negative campaign ad, which it titled "Mark Kirk Going Rogue...on Himself."

Ben Berkon: Sarah Palin's Brand New Tell-All Book to Document Her Soon-to-Be Released Tell-All Book

2009-11-05T19:00:00Z

In political news, former Republican Governor of Alaska and Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has hit it rich again in the book world. Despite the November 17th release of "Going Rogue: An American Life" -- her tell-all book about her political rise -- Palin has already decided to "write" her even newer tell-all book which will thoroughly document the "writing process" of her shitty book that critics have labeled "the best beach read since Keyshawn Johnson's Just Give Me the Damn Ball!"

"We are absolutely thrilled about Sarah's brand new tell-all book," said HarperCollins executive, Tim Lakers. "Sarah worked really hard on Going Rogue: An American Life, but I don't think people will appreciate how arduous the process of finding a good ghostwriter is just by reading an embellished memoir about a person who doesn't believe in dinosaurs. Anyway, we felt the necessary next step was to have her write a tell-all book about that tell-all book. Sarah was a bit overwhelmed at the idea initially, but she quickly accepted our offer of five million dollars and a 12-pack of fruit rollups. We're hopeful that it will be even shittier than her current tell-all book."

HarperCollins predicted that the new tell-all memoir will be released sometime in 2010. According to sources close to Palin, the first chapter will cover how Palin sat in a beauty salon all day while her first book was written by a much smarter person who was in dire need of money.

(For more articles and segments of this kind, visit www.SomethingYouShouldRead.com.)

Jim Wallis: The Elections You May Not Have Noticed

2009-11-05T13:39:01Z

Most of the country probably didn't notice. Unless you live in Virginia, New Jersey, a couple areas in New York, or maybe even Maine or Washington state, it's quite possible you heard little about Tuesday's elections. But to the chattering class of D.C., it is likely that the rest of the week, maybe even longer, will be spent reading the entrails of this off-year election.

To save you some time, let me sum up all the coverage for you. Republicans won gubernatorial seats in Virginia and New Jersey by quite a bit. Republican Mayor Bloomberg kept his seat in New York City, but it was a lot closer than most expected. In New York's 23rd Congressional District, a Democrat won even though polls had consistently shown the Conservative (a third party candidate) with a solid lead. Maine rejected a gay marriage law and Washington expanded domestic partnership rights for gay couples.

What does it all mean? Republicans are declaring a comeback -- proof that the nation has turned on Obama, his policies, and the role of government in almost anything. They see a resounding referendum that the country is tired of Democratic leadership. Democrats are excusing the losses due to weak candidates and historical precedents in those states of poor performance in off-years; they're also touting the 23rd Congressional District and Bloomberg's weaker than expected performance as proof that the president and the Democrats still get it and have public support, or at least most of them.

I think there is a different lesson here -- one I have been thinking about a lot lately.

People don't care about Washington, D.C. as much Washington, D.C. thinks people care about it.

In fact, I think as people continue to see so much of politics as usual in this town -- partisan bickering and big money buying votes -- they are increasingly likely to vote against whatever represents the old politics for them. Obama campaign rallies in Virginia and New Jersey were not enough to convince the people there that the candidate with a "D" beside the name would be the best choice for their state. New York's 23rd District went to a Democrat for the first time since the Civil War despite support for the Conservative, including an aggressive cable news campaign from Glenn Beck, a radio campaign from Rush Limbaugh and a visit from Sarah Palin. But high profile visits and endorsements from right wing luminaries and Republican presidential hopefuls were not enough to win a Congressional seat in one of the most conservative districts in New York state. Mayor Bloomberg is estimated to have spent over $100 million during the campaign (I saw it broken down to $170 per voter!) to win by just five points while his nearest challenger only spent one-tenth of that amount. Democrat Jon Corzine spent 25 million of his own dollars to outspend the Republican candidate in New Jersey, but it wasn't enough to counter the popular reaction to another Wall Street tycoon wanting to keep buying political power.

I think people are tired of the power of money and the grip of power in politics. After 30 years in Washington, D.C., I know I'm tired of seeing the kind of influence money has in politics and was glad to see it resisted in several of the election results. I am sick of hearing the rants and raves of talk show hosts and demagoguery in politics, and the people of New York's 23rd District showed quite clearly that they were not going to be steamrolled by it. One year ago, the majority of the people in this country voted for "a change they could believe in," and many are still waiting.

The importance and impact of a very few elections this week has already been greatly exaggerated. But the signs of discontent go far beyond the preference for one party over another; they indicate a deeper rejection of old politics. That discontent will soon turn into more cynical withdrawal unless people begin to see a "new politics" worth their energy and involvement. But that new politics will never exist if we simply wait for it to come from Washington; we must create it and help it grow by the social movements we build. And the voters who turned out in Virginia and New Jersey just demonstrated that they aren't convinced yet that a new politics is coming from Washington, D.C.

Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening, Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Charles Butler: Happy Election Day, Mr. President

2009-11-05T12:17:15Z

November 2, 2009

Here we are one year since the first Black American President was elected to office. I must be honest with you all and proclaim it was a relief not to have Sarah Palin a heartbeat from the presidency.

The Republican ticket of McCain/Palin left a lot to be desired for many Americans. So, it became the adage "Which ticket is the least worst of a two poor choices." We have found ourselves in this position more often than not in the last 40 years. The American people spoke by voting in Barack Hussein Obama and "Poor Joe" Biden.

After I got over the initial shock, I immediately sensed the relief of not having to defend Republican policies and remarks. The focus was on the new team of "Yes We Can" and knowing what I know about politics, I knew they couldn't achieved their promises in the best economic and political climate. However, I hoped for the best and wished them well, for the sake of the country.

My wife and I attended the Presidential Inauguration, the Obama Lovefest, and enjoyed seeing old friends and making new ones on a beautiful day in Washington, D.C. We saw many people that we know walk onto the swearing-in platform behind President-elect Obama. I could not help but think as I was standing there on the Mall with 3 million other people, what is Obama really going to accomplish in office. Knowing that his previous political accomplishments were light by any measure, I was concerned for the country. I thought to myself, will these people be disappointed again by a charismatic politician making big promises: "If the CEO can be wealthy, why can't the janitor, and if I am elected, I will give the janitor and secretary a path to that wealth." The visions of the Senator Obama jumping up on stages and rallying the people around the country with popularist phases played over and over in my mind. I thought how is the President of the United States going to regulate the pay of a CEO of a private corporation? What would give him that authority?

Then the fun began with the selection of the first cabinet members. I can only say that the President promised to find the best qualified people to serve in his administration. Going in I surmised that Black people would see their plight change if we got the slots of Commerce, Education, Attorney General, or Labor at the very least. Many folks were shocked and disappointed that he could only find one Black American that fit those qualifications, Eric Holder the Attorney General. When questioned about the appointment of SECDOE Arnie Duncan, Mr. Obama replied he is the best basketball player in the cabinet. Let's just ignore the fact he ran one of the worst school systems in the country during his tenure. Only 45 students died and 398 were wounded for the school year of 2008/2009. The President of hope and change found plenty of Hispanics, and Asians to fill key roles in the administration. The pay-off for 96% Black voter support.

The Incoming President promised "Hope and Change" for all Americans and an unparalleled level of transparency. Well, the facts are the White House has been very secretive about visitors and policies. Mr. Obama promised to post bills online before he signed them to get Americans comments. Not one as been posted before he signed it into law.

I think President Obama's lack of experience in executive decision making is beginning to show. As the CEO of the country, he has to make decisions that effect a great number of people. He has waffled on Afghanistan troop build up, closing Gitmo, and a host of other issues. The experts are saying the Stimulus monies were a bust and the economic recovery is jobless, instead of the thousands of jobs the President predicted.

I think last year's vote proved people voted against Bush, and not for Obama. Today's votes are about the economy and jobs in the respective areas, not Obama policies. However, people are angry and frustrated over the tax hikes, health care, troops in the war, and the jobless economy recovery.

I have never heard a President and his people lay blame the previous administration so frequently. One of President Obama's supporters said it best. Bill Maher said, "I never thought I would long for the days of George W. Bush and decisions." Please stop campaigning and start governing, Mr. President.

Mr. President, it is your country to run now, and you need to stop blaming Bush and Cheney and make some decisions. You can not make everyone happy!

Peace, Charles

Valerie Tarico: Rebiblican Stealth Strategy Loses Big in Washington State, Wins Big on East Coast. Why?

2009-11-05T09:59:05Z

As the Right Wing base sinks to new levels of insanity taking the Republican brand with it, “going stealth” has become the campaign strategy of choice in districts where an all-out, Teabagger Town Hall, Palin-Beck, froth-mouthed feeding frenzy would just turn stomachs. The Right’s agenda isn’t evolving, just its tactics. You have to give it to those frackers. They are smart.

They still want to drown government in a bathtub. Never mind that we need our safety net and education system more than ever. They still think that some hubba hubba god made women “separate but equal"—men with brains and biceps, women with vaginas. (It’s called complementarianism). They still think we can teach creationism in schools and expect to be competitive internationally. (Bing “Academic Freedom Bills”). They still value life until birth. They still think we can end drug use by jailing addicts. They still think that guns don’t kill people. They still think the problem with their marriage is my brother. And they still think that you can give the free market absolute power without it corrupting absolutely.

But in some of the best run Republican and Religious Right (Rebiblican) campaigns in the country, you’d never know it. Here in King County, Washington, the Right even funded a charter amendment making county races nonpartisan before running a “moderate, nonpartisan” Rebiblican named Susan Hutchison. In Virginia and New Jersey, to quote Frank Rich,

"The very conservative Republican contenders in the two big gubernatorial contests this week have frantically tried to disguise their own convictions. The candidate in Virginia, Bob McDonnell, is a graduate of Pat Robertson’s university whose career has been devoted to curbing abortion rights, gay civil rights and even birth control. But in this campaign he ditched those issues, disinvited Palin for a campaign appearance, praised Obama’s Nobel Prize, and ran a closing campaign ad trumpeting “Hope.” Chris Christie, McDonnell’s counterpart in New Jersey, posted a campaign video celebrating “Change” in which Obama’s face and most stirring campaign sound bites so dominate you’d think the president had endorsed the Republican over his Democratic opponent, Jon Corzine."

As several bloggers have warned (here, here, here), we should expect to see more of this over the next few years, especially since it worked beautifully for both McDonnell and Christie. The crowing about these two Rebiblican wins has spanned the country, in contrast to the dead silence about the Palin-Beck chow fest in upstate New York that the voters barfed up.

What’s interesting is that the same stealth strategy failed miserably in Washington State. Palin-wannabe Susan Hutchison was defeated by fourteen points after being ahead in the polls just weeks ago.

What happened? It’s very simple: Word got out about who she is, and it made King County’s voters a bit queasy. Reproductive rights activists took to the streets with homemade signs that made evening news. An anti-dominionist did research and then rallied colleagues at other blogs (e.g.God’s Own Party). A public access TV host recruited guests to talk about Hutchison’s brand of politicized creationism. A lefty blogger (Horsesass.org) defied copy-right claims to show footage Hutchison speaking to her base. So did her opponent’s campaign. So did local students. A Seattle comic made his own funny low budget cartoon ad exposing Hutchison’s puppet masters.

It wasn’t just that the usual suspects—campaign professionals and volunteers, unions, advocacy groups and donors--played their roles and played them well. I would suspect this happened in Virginia and New Jersey also, to little avail. Here in Washington, the information streamed from all sides. By November 3, the voting public knew who Susan Palin Hutchison is, and for a stealth campaign, that’s lethal. Several years ago, George Lakoff said that when the Right uses our language to cover their agenda they are showing us where they are weak, where the public actually disagrees with them. When Rebiblicans pose as moderates and change agents, they have just exposed soft tissue.

The right has the advantage in mainstream media, in hierarchy, authority, and message discipline. But the left has the advantage when it comes to distributed information networks, outspoken renegades, and innovation. If we want that East Coast crowing to stop, we need to start engaging these networks and cutting them loose (with funds as needed) to do what they do best.

Geoffrey Dunn: Palin's Bob & Mark Show Shame

2009-11-04T20:12:29Z

As the inimitable Sarah Palin gets ready for the unleashing of her memoirs, Going Rogue, she announced on her Facebook page today that she's "very, very excited about the upcoming road trip for my book."

Of course she is. It will get her out of Alaska and all of the reminders of her failed governorship. Hopefully, she'll get more than a few reminders of her failed support of right-wing congressional candidate Doug "I Don't Live in the District" Hoffman, whose defeat yesterday can be directly linked to Palin's support. But that's another story.

Under a Facebook posting entitled "Road Trip!" Palin listed the "wide assortment" of interviews she's scheduling in a grueling engagement with the media elite.

We're in the process of arranging interviews with local and national media. An interview with Oprah Winfrey is already scheduled, and I'm also hoping to have the opportunity to talk with Bill O'Reilly, Barbara Walters, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller, Tammy Bruce, and others, including local Alaska personalities Bob & Mark and Eddie Burke. (Variety is the spice of life!)

Variety? Whew! You have got to be kidding. That sounds like the variety you'd find on the senior's menu at Appleby's.

But the mention of Alaska "personalities" Bob & Mark conjures up a truly shameless moment from Palin's past, and it will be interesting to see if she has the integrity to address it in her book.

Fortunately, there's an audio recording of Palin's memorable performance, otherwise she could deny the whole affair, as she does with virtually ever charge that's ever been leveled at her.

In January of 2008, Palin, while Governor, went on the Bob & Mark radio show with a pair of Anchorage-based shock jocks, Bob & Mark, who were belittling Palin's former mentor, the matriarch of Alaska's Republican Party, Lyda Green, by calling her a "bitch" and a "cancer." Palin actually giggled throughout their remarks (you can hear her sicko giddy response on the recording, including to a "fat" joke about Green) even though she knew full well that Green was a breast-cancer survivor. Palin then added ever-so-sincerely that "we'd be honored" to be visited by Bob and Mark in Juneau. She puts on that phony Palinspeak voice that she invokes when she tries to sound "official."

"She really has no moral compass," Green told me recently. "She uses people in a very un-Christian way. She only does what is best for Sarah."

Of course no one in the McCain campaign called Green or any other Republican leaders in Alaska before making the selection. And I wonder if she provided this tape to his fawning campaign manager Rick Davis before finalizing her selection as McCain's running mate? Let's see how she handles this shining moment from her life in Going Rogue.

Award-winning writer and filmmaker Geoffrey Dunn's book The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power will be released by St. Martin's Press in spring 2010.

Chris Weigant: One Year After Obama's Election: Still Smarter...Than The Alternative

2009-11-04T18:57:07Z

The day before I cast my vote for Barack Obama, I wrote a column titled "Barack Obama Is Smarter Than Us." By "us," I meant the legions of us lefty bloggers out here, who second-guessed his campaign on a daily basis for nigh on two years. I included myself in that "us" as well -- because, I fully admit, I got incredibly frustrated during Obama's campaign when he didn't do what I really, really wanted him to. Or didn't do it fast enough to suit me.

But you know what? He won anyway.

Here's part of what I wrote back then:

...I have to say, once again, that Barack Obama was right not to always listen to me, and others of my ilk. He knew through it all that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and that a purist lefty candidate would not win the White House. So I have to stand up and admit it.

Obama was right. We were wrong. And he has shown he knew what he was doing all along, which makes me even more comfortable casting my vote for him tomorrow.

I also wrote, at the time:

Should Obama be elected, and should he run his White House the way he has run his campaign; then we are about to see some professionalism and basic competence in Washington once again, instead of the pure partisan rancor and dysfunction we've (sadly) become accustomed to.

So, after reflecting on how I felt a year ago during the election itself and how I feel now, I do have to say that the old adage is true: governing is harder than campaigning.

The eternal question within the District of Columbia for an "outsider" running a successful campaign on "changing the system" (Note to our younger readers: Barack Obama is not the first to have come up with this theme) is, of course: "Will you change Washington... or will Washington change you?"

Barack Obama was always a bit of a blank canvas for everyone. The Righties were incensed by this, and tried to portray him as some sort of empty suit, building castles in the air upon his lofty campaign rhetoric. But the Lefties were almost as bad, attempting to paint their own picture upon this blank canvas with the funny name... and, by doing so, declare Obama one of them. You might say the Lefties took up residence in Obama's air castles, smug in their belief that he would (after he was elected) do what they wanted (and indeed expected) him to, rather than what he actually said he was going to do. Or not do.

Obama, though, was not the picture either side painted of him on this blank canvas. He was, and always has been, his own man.

The disillusionment and disappointment a lot of Lefties are feeling right now is a direct result of their own refusal to hear what Obama was actually saying during the campaign, versus what they really wanted him to say, or "heard" him say, somehow. That may be a fairly harsh assessment for some people to hear, but I believe it is true to some extent. The feeling of crashing back down to Earth is usually the end result of attempting to live in a castle in the air. Some of the Left's disappointment, to be sure, is over actual broken campaign promises; but most of it is over their perceptions of Obama that didn't quite prove to be true in the end.

I have to say that I pride myself (as someone who does a halfway-decent imitation of a "pundit" on the interwebs) for never having totally "drunk the Obama Kool-Aid." I apologize if it causes offense, but I've always seen him as a politician. A brilliant politician, to be sure, and one whose like we may not see for another generation in American politics (in other words, not "just a politician" as some sort of pejorative), but a politician nonetheless. For better or worse.

Take the issue of foreign policy, for example. Obama campaigned on getting out of Iraq. He spoke of moving thousands of American troops out on a monthly basis, beginning almost immediately after he took office, until all combat forces had come home. Both the Left and the Right (using different language to describe it, of course) decided that Obama wanted to get out of Iraq as soon as could be safely arranged. But then, at the last minute, George W. Bush signed a Status Of Forces Agreement which pretty much laid down the "timetable for withdrawal" to follow. Obama, once sworn into office, has largely kept Bush's plan intact. The first stage was withdrawing from Iraqi cities this summer. The second stage will be the real troop drawdown, which should begin shortly after Iraq has a national election (currently slated for January). Neither the Left nor the Right's caricature of Obama as Commander-In-Chief turned out to be true. He took into account the "situation on the ground," and changed his strategy accordingly -- something neither side really expected him to do, it should be noted.

Or take the Afghanistan situation. Throughout the campaign, Obama spoke of Afghanistan as being the war we really should be fighting, rather than Iraq. The "good" war, if you will. He spoke of sending around 10,000 more American troops over there right away. Now, as Obama decides what the strategy will be for the coming year, the Right is trying to portray him as some sort of wimp who is going to lose the war by "dithering" (as Dick Cheney put it); and the Left is portraying him as somehow betraying their idealistic anti-war image of Obama. The telling thing to me is that neither side either: (a) admits that Obama was always hawkish on the Afghanistan war; or (b) even noticed or has seen fit to mention that Obama has already fulfilled his campaign promise -- threefold -- when he sent 30,000 more troops over there, earlier this year.

Perception -- as in "people's perception of Obama" -- seems to be more important to a lot of folks than the reality of Obama the politician, or Obama the president. On both sides.

The Right, after the election, wasted no time in trying to paint Obama as all sorts of things that he wasn't, and was never going to be. They haven't let up for a minute -- and they won't, for the next three years. The Left has been shocked by all of this unseemliness, since they conjured images up of everyone singing "Kumbaya" after Obama's inauguration -- conveniently forgetting that whole "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" thing that Bill Clinton had to put up with (also from Day One, in his presidency). Or the way Dubya started his term, for that matter. Just because an election's over does not mean that the losing side in the election is going to suddenly "see the light" of the winning side -- it never has in American politics, and it never will.

Expectations after Obama took office, from both the Left and Right (again, in different ways), were high. The Right -- some of them, at least -- think America is truly on the brink of becoming (take your pick) Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or even (conservatives shudder at the suggestion), France. The Left -- some of them, at least -- actually believed in their own dreams of a Progressive Utopia, even though what Obama actually said during the campaign bore little resemblance to it.

Now, all of this isn't to say that I don't have my own annoyances with Barack Obama, which I point out frequently here in public. He has either broken or severely backtracked on a number of his campaign promises, I fully admit. But he has also kept and delivered upon a downright astonishing number (for any politician) of campaign promises, as well. Governing is always harder than campaigning, and every politician is forced at times to realize that what sounded so glib while knocking his opponent during a rally of the faithful is really a lot tougher than it seemed at the time. This is natural, although some of Obama's supporters may be too young to have ever seen it before in a politician of their own party whom they admired greatly on the hustings, giving his stump speech. There's always a bit of letdown, and because Obama was being held to such a high standard (the absolute ramparts of the air castles, as it were), the letdown is even more keenly felt by some.

Millions of Americans did have sky-high expectations for Obama. But he has been more closely examined and criticized and covered by the media than just about anyone I can remember. The media, hilariously, calls Obama (in disparaging tones) a "media rock star" -- without realizing the irony that the only thing they're condemning by using such a term is themselves. You can't be a media star without a willing media. If proof is needed -- look at us. Here we are, critically examining Obama's "first year," when, in actual fact, he has served less than three hundred days in office. Because, you see, Barack Obama doesn't get a first year. He gets a first nine-and-a-half months. That's the way it goes if your name is Obama, I guess.

I was at a party recently, and a close friend and I were discussing the subject of Obama, his "first year," and this article (which I was then considering how to write). A quick rundown on this friend: she's a Union officer and organizer, she would rather be dipped in molten lava than vote Republican, and she keeps up on the political scene and the news about as much as any Huffington Post reader. She also, from Union negotiations with local government, understands both the slowness and obstacles to getting good things done, and also the fact that sometimes you have to compromise and you don't get everything you want.

But, after circling around for a while in describing her disappointment in some of what Obama has done (mostly "not done," if truth be told), she finally, in exasperation, said what she really felt, in response to something I said along the lines of: "If Obama had overturned 'Don't Ask/Don't Tell' on his first day in office, but failed on healthcare reform -- would you be happier with the result than if it was the other way around?".

She summed up her frustration with Barack Obama not going further faster in a very visceral way: "I want it all," she said, perhaps unconsciously quoting the late Freddie Mercury. "I want it all, and I want it now!" Specifically, what she wants is: Democrats in Congress to act like Democrats, and act like they have a majority; Obama to forcefully get out there and fight for what he campaigned for -- "Change we can believe in!"; Obama to be the "fierce advocate" for gay rights he promised he'd be; Obama to stop bailing out Wall Street and pay a lot more attention to Main Street; Obama to send George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to Guantanamo Bay where they would be subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" until they came clean about the past eight years; the Democrats to pick up about 50 or 60 seats in the House in 2010 and about 20 more seats in the Senate; Harry Reid to be replaced as Senate Majority Leader, tout suite; Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers to be replaced, also immédiatement; Union strength to return to about where it was in... oh... 1958, say; Alan Grayson to appear on every political talk show for the next four years, on a daily basis; John Boehner and Mitch McConnell never to appear on her television screen, ever again, on any program; Sarah Palin to be a miserable failure at anything she attempts in the future; and President Obama to have a magic wand which he can wave and get Congress to do exactly what he wants them to do. Oh, and the memory of Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of her state to be permanently excised from her memory, I should mention that one, too.

She's not alone in any of that, either. That particular ethereal castle's booked solid, and has a waiting list as long as your arm to get into. I sympathize with most of what she felt, myself. It sounds like a pretty good place to live in, or even to visit; the way we all used to tune in each week to The West Wing, to see how life was like in the alternate universe where Martin Sheen was president. Or, perhaps, another universe in which Obama conducts himself much as President (or "King" as it were) George W. Bush conducted himself, in regards to Congress.

But it's not reality. It's not the reality we live in. This reality is a lot more ugly, and a lot more concrete. Obama is not King. Obama really believes reaching out to the other side is a good and important thing to do, and not just a campaign promise. Congress still has a role under our Constitution, as inconvenient as it is to admit this fact. Lobbyists still exist. Washington is still situated on a former swamp, having only exchanged alligators for alligator wingtips on K Street. Congresscritters (far too many of them) are still absolute whores for big corporate campaign contributions. 'Twas ever thus in the District. There's only so much one man (no matter how powerful, or what his name is) can do to drain this particular swamp.

And while I would have loved to see some cage-fighting Democrats beating down Republican opponents on the Hill in the past nine months, I have to admit that what I wrote a year ago is a double-edged knife -- it cuts both ways. While we who consider ourselves "down in the trenches" in these day-to-day battles would absolutely love it if we got stronger backing and stronger leadership from the White House at times, what we are really hoping for is merely a reversal of fortunes in Washington, not a true change. Again, what I wrote back then:

Should Obama be elected, and should he run his White House the way he has run his campaign; then we are about to see some professionalism and basic competence in Washington once again, instead of the pure partisan rancor and dysfunction we've (sadly) become accustomed to.

"Pure partisan rancor" can come from both sides -- we'd all do well to remember that.

Which returns us to our primary question: "Has Washington changed Obama, or has Obama changed Washington?"

I would answer this in two ways. The first is to state that Obama has changed Washington in a very critical way -- because Democrats are now on the offensive. Democrats are now driving the bus. This is not always entirely apparent (they are, after all, Democrats), but think about it dispassionately for a moment -- Democrats are the ones proposing legislation, and Democrats are the ones squabbling about what it will contain. Even after the 2006 sweep of Congress, the agenda in D.C. largely remained Republican, since no matter what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid managed to pass, if it wasn't sufficiently acceptable to Bush and his Republican sycophants, it would not have become law. This has changed, in a big way. It can be argued that this is not due to Obama himself, but rather to the partisan power dynamic which exists now, as opposed to back then -- but that would be to ignore the reason for this change: Barack Obama being elected president.

And it's a bigger change than most people give him credit for, or indeed, even think about.

The second thing that Obama is trying to change is the 24-hour-news-cycle, short-sighted nature of Washington thinking (or what passes for "thinking" in the punditocracy). The jury is still largely out on this one, I have to admit. The most impressive thing about Obama, which I have noticed over and over again in the past nine months or so, is that he absolutely refuses to be drawn in to trivial subjects -- which, it must be pointed out, cause vapors, fainting, shrieking, and even (at times) heads exploding among the cable news channels. Put succinctly: Obama takes the long view. Always. Even when all around him are taking a very, very short view -- for the sake of puffing some stupid playground battle among politicians into some improved cable chat show ratings. Obama, to a very large extent, just doesn't play that game. He simply refuses to, over and over again. The only time he's really slipped up on this front was the whole "beer summit" nonsense, for which he can be forgiven (seeing as how a friend of his was involved).

To me, this -- if he manages to succeed in the end -- would be "change" I could indeed believe in. The shortening of the American attention span, and the concomitant idiocy-pretending-to-be-depth stoked by the 24-hour news cycle is one of the chief culprits in the crime of American politicians being seemingly incapable of having serious debates about serious subjects with long-range implications in the modern age. If Obama can manage to overcome this prattling nonsense, and hence rise above the rank stupidity of filling up the airwaves with non-stories on a daily basis -- then he will have achieved more than I ever thought any politician could, in today's media world.

Of course, he'll probably fail at that. P.T. Barnum's "there's one born every minute" maxim does come to mind. But I have to give Obama credit for at least trying.

That's what it all comes down to, really. Do you still give Obama the benefit of the doubt? I have to admit here, his supporters have used the line "it's only been X months..." as an excuse to deflect Obama criticism so many times now that it is indeed beginning to wear a bit thin. We're not talking about a true "first year" for Obama today, but that actual milestone isn't all that far away. And one year is precisely one-fourth of a president's term.

The other question it really all boils down to is one of trust. Do you still trust President Obama to do the right thing in most situations? I did back when I voted for him, and I have to admit that I still do. I have reservations, I'm a bit wary at times over specific actions Obama takes, and strategies he employs (or doesn't employ); but that core of trust in Obama -- as a politician, and with eyes wide open on my part -- still exists, I have to say. And while Obama's approval polls are down a bit from the stratospheric highs he entered office with, he still enjoys support from just about exactly the same percentage of Americans who voted for him on election day last year. And that is a measure, in a very real way, about how the public still trusts Obama to the same degree they did last year. Which, I have to admit, is a comforting thought.

Especially when you consider the alternative. Imagine where we'd be now with President John "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" McCain, and Vice President Sarah (shudder) Palin. Each and every time you get disappointed in President Obama, or disagree with something he says or does, ask yourself: "How would this discussion be different if McCain had won?"

That kind of puts Obama's "first year" in perspective for me, at least. Obama may not be smarter than all of us, but he sure is smarter by a long shot than McCain would have been. And that, for now, is enough for me.

[Technical Note: Earlier, I used what can only be described as metaphorical excess, since I don't believe alligators ever infested Georgetown or anything. I could be wrong about that, though, as I could have sworn I once saw Pogo Possum, Albert, and a few of their friends on the Metro....]

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Joe Peyronnin: What Change?

2009-11-04T17:45:47Z

The Republican Party enjoyed two key victories in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races thus halting the Democrat's momentum. While the results should concern the White House, Republicans have plenty to worry about as well.

It is a truism in politics that after a party wins the White House it loses ground in midterm elections. For example, take New Jersey. Democrats had hoped that President Barack Obama's continued popularity would lift Governor Jon Corzine across the finish line. But Gov. Corzine was a weak candidate who spent a personal fortune on a largely negative campaign. Exit polls indicate that 60% of those interviewed said President Obama was not a factor in their decision. And those who said he was a factor split evenly on the question between negative and positive.

It was just one year ago that young as well as minority voters poured into voting booths in record numbers across the nation inspired by a very special candidate with a powerful message of change. Yesterday, according to exit polls, a majority of voters in both New Jersey and Virginia said President Obama had no impact on their vote. In fact, turnout was low in most of the elections yesterday. The young and minority voters were not motivated enough to come out and vote. Is this a symptom of a bigger problem for Democrats in 2010? Could the president have had a favorable impact had he delivered on his pledge to change Washington, even just a little?

Many Americans voted for President Obama because they wanted change. The economy had been nearly destroyed by financial institutions that were running up record profits on questionable and unregulated trading practices. Now some of these surviving financial institutions, backed taxpayer money, have returned to business as usual. There has been little or no new regulation for this system. Yet millions of Americans are still hurting. Foreclosures continue to increase and unemployment is stuck around an unacceptable 10%.

Many Americans were looking for change in Washington, an end of politics as usual. Yet the raucous debate over health care, the powerful role of special interests and the focus on short term political gains these past few months proves Washington is not ready for reform. Hope for change has been doused with a bucket of cold reality.

Deficits are climbing at record levels and will be passed on to our children. And Americans fear that tax increases and terrible inflation lurks right around the corner. This as they cope with the nightmare of two wars. US soldiers are dying in Iraq, an unnecessary war, and Afghanistan, where there is still no clear strategy for victory or a respectful withdrawal. Today most Afghans view Americans as occupiers, just as they did the Soviets and the English.

Meanwhile, the far left and the far right have become more intense and much louder. The differences have sharpened; the knives have been drawn. It is more than political; it has now become personal. The vast middle, teeming with independents who had sided with President Obama, are being tossed about the main deck as the ship of state is being buffeted by the bluster of partisanship. All of this is being intensified by cable news and bloggers.

The Republicans should be sitting in the catbird seat. Except they have become the party of no, and are now embroiled in their own civil war. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steel and some moderates are now up against the conservative wing led by Former Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Tim Pawlenty and Rush Limbaugh. Never mind that President Ronald Reagan's success was the result of a broad coalition of traditional Republicans and independents. The party came apart in New York's 23rd Congressional District, where conservatives threw their support to a conservative who doesn't even live in the district. The result was a nearly unprecedented win for the Democrats.

There are a few takeaways from yesterday's election. First, for the White House: focus on the economy. Where are the jobs? Where is the financial regulation? Where are the promised budget cuts to lower the country's deficit spending? If there is not some tangible progress with America's economy by 2010 President Obama will be a drag on many Democrats in tightly contested districts.

Second, Governor Corzine: you can't win an election with negative ads when you have nothing positive to say about your own record. In fact, negative ads never work in the long run, even when you do outspend your opponent three to one. It is possible that you will be best remembered as the Governor who attacked his opponent's waistline.

Third, Republicans: what were you thinking in New York's 23rd Congressional District. You managed to cause a backlash in a predominantly Republican district, called national attention to your inept management and brought light to your internal battles.

And finally, no wonder most eligible voters decided not to participate on election day.

Andy Ostroy: One Spin You Won't Hear From Republicans About Tuesday's Election

2009-11-04T17:28:19Z

Democrats lost two key elections Tuesday: the gubernatorial races in New Jersey, where Republican Chris Christie defeated incumbent Jon Corzine, and in Virginia, where Bob McDonnell defeated Creigh Deeds in a special election to fill the vacating Tim Kaine's seat.

As expected, the Republican spin-machine is in euphoric overdrive, maniacally labeling these victories a broad repudiation of President Obama's "liberal agenda" and an ominous foreshadowing of things to come for Democrats in next year's midterms. Granted, a strong night for theGOP -- winning is always better than losing -- but hardly a sign of any tidal waves of conservatism sweeping the nation, as right-wing pundits are boasting.

But what you won't hear the spinners crowing about is the shocking punch to the gut the GOP took in upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District, where a Democrat won for the first time in over 100 years. That's right, 100 years. Despite massive support from right-wing heavyweight (pun intended) Rush Limbaugh and GOP oracle Sarah Palin, Republican Doug Hoffman was defeated by Democrat Bill Owens, for whom Obama campaigned aggressively. Let me be the first to say that Owens' win is a resounding affirmation of Obama's performance.

It's important to note that, unlike NY's 23rd, the NJ and Virginia elections were won on statewide and local issues. Christie's victory can be attributed to two central themes: corruption and property taxes. Hardly a referendum on Obama or Democrats nationally. And Virginia? Well, that solidly red state hadn't voted for a Democratic president since 1964. It's a bit of a stretch to say McDonnell's win is a reshaping of the broader national political landscape. Remember that former Governor Kaine was a conservative Democrat and Obama's victory last year was a huge upset. Let's keep things in perspective: it's not like McDonnell turned Massachusetts red.

Speaking of his victory and what it all means, Christie said, "Tomorrow we're going to take back New Jersey for the least fortunate, who don't want government to fix every problem." Yeah, if we can be certain about one thing, it's that poor folks hate all that government assistance. Medicaid? Public education? Food stamps? Cash-for-clunkers? Home-buying tax credits? Mortgage relief? Yes, I'm sure the "least fortunate" would much rather see those most fortunate rich folk get huge tax cuts instead. So now Christie's "least fortunate" got what they wanted: Chris Christie to the rescue to save them from all that big-government, problem-fixing aid to the little guy. Jeez, will the little guy ever learn?

On the overall significance of Tuesday's victories for conservatives, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said, "America, through the voices of those folks in New Jersey and Virginia, had something to say." Really? And what exactly did they have to say up in NY's 23rd, where a Democrat hasn't won in over a century? Does the good chairman heed that voice, and what it says about how voters on a national level view his party and its candidates? Apparently, voters still want change, and man, did the GOP get change in NY's 23rd. Let that be a foreshadowing of things to come for the myopic, narrow-minded, small-tented, shrinking fringe-right base of the Republican Party next year.

By the way, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was re-elected after spending a reported $100-million+ to defeat Comptroller Bill Thompson by just 5%. A very painful reminder of how and why the rich often dominate politics. Interesting to think who'd be sitting in City Hall right now had Thompson's war-chest been fatter, or Bloomberg's smaller...

Kirk Seeks Palin Endorsement One Year After Trashing Her

2009-11-04T14:52:54Z

Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk of Illinois is reportedly trying to get Sarah Plain to endorse his candidacy, which is not surprising considering the formidable sway the former Alaska governor seems to hold on the conservative movement.

But there's good reason to think Kirk will come up short in his efforts. And its not simply because the tea-party set feels he lacks the ideological bonafides.

Kirk was one of the first elected Republican officials to raise concerns about Palin's selection as John McCain's vice presidential candidate. Back in October 2008, the Illinois Republican told the Chicago Tribune that he "would have picked someone different." Asked later whether he thought Palin was qualified to be one heartbeat away from being commander in chief, Kirk replied: "Quite frankly, I don't know."

Quite a few other Republicans were distancing themselves from Palin around the same time. But Kirk was actually associated with the McCain campaign -- having bundled for the Senator -- making his remarks all the more of a distraction for the Arizona Republican.

Kirk, significantly, is using back channels to ask for Palin's endorsement. Illinois is not a conservative state, and to win the general election, a Republican would have to show some streaks of political moderation.

The emergence from the right of Patrick Hughes, a Chicago-area developer, as a primary opponent undoubtedly is convincing Kirk that he needs a bit more conservative cred. These days, Palin is the surest way to cover that flank.

But whether she is the forgiving and forgetting type remains to be seen.

UPDATE: Hughes responds to the news by mocking Kirk for trying to undergo a late-in-life conversion to conservatism.

"I believe Mark Kirk, who has consistently supported President Obama's legislative agenda, including cap and trade legislation, is quickly realizing that Republican Primary voters do not share his extreme views. In a desperate attempt to prove otherwise, he is seeking the endorsement of Sarah Palin, a true Reagan conservative, to help disguise his liberal voting record."

Sarah Palin Lines Up An Impressive Array Of Cupcake Media Appearances

2009-11-04T12:07:10Z

Via Andrew Sullivan, I see that Sarah Palin will be doing a substantial amount of globetrotting, and much like the ones in Harlem, has scheduled matches against all of the Washington Generals:

We're in the process of arranging interviews with local and national media. An interview with Oprah Winfrey is already scheduled, and I'm also hoping to have the opportunity to talk with Bill O'Reilly, Barbara Walters, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Dennis Miller, Tammy Bruce, and others, including local Alaska personalities Bob & Mark and Eddie Burke. (Variety is the spice of life!)

Hmmmph. This sort of spicy variety doesn't exactly pave the way for too many culinary options. When the most furtive questioners you've lined up are Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters, you can't exactly lay claim to boldness. But look, this is hardly surprising. Let's recall that Palin views the role of the point guard as someone who passes the ball and grabs a seat on the bench.

Palin's taken precisely one gamble, post-election, and that was to throw her might behind New York 23rd District loser Doug Hoffman. Going into 2010, my expectation is that Palin will continue to identify races in which the GOP candidate is projected to win in a blowout, force robocalls on the unwilling candidate, and give herself a hefty pat on the back, all while eschewing anyone in the media who might cast a baleful eye on her political acumen. Still a Sunday morning no-show, I remind you! And that's pathetic.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Robert Creamer: Four Lessons for Democrats in Tuesday's Elections

2009-11-04T10:41:47Z

Our ability to discern trends in off-year elections is always limited by the influence of local factors -- especially when strong personalities are involved. But there are four lessons that emerged from yesterday's results that are extremely important for Democrats as we prepare for next year's midterms.

1). First and foremost, the results show that it is critical that the Democratic message be framed in populist terms.

Not surprisingly voters are unhappy. Ten percent unemployment, rising health care bills and shrinking incomes will do that. All of these problems resulted from the Republican policies of the previous eight years and the conservative values frame of the last thirty years. They have been caused by the concentration of power in Wall Street, the big health insurance companies and the dominant role of corporate special interests in Washington.

But if Democrats do not clearly frame the debate in those terms, it is easy for voters to vote against whoever is in power at the moment -- which now happen to be Democrats.

The most distinctive trend in last night's results was that in all of the nationally significant races, the incumbent -- or incumbent party -- lost (or in the case of New York City, did much more poorly than expected).

Corzine had trailed Christie by 10 percent through much of the summer. Massive TV spending, appearances by the president and last minute get-out-the-vote efforts helped close the gap. But that wasn't enough to re-elect the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs in a state with little patience like New Jersey.

In Virginia, the lackluster campaign of Creigh Deeds never had a chance and found it singularly difficult to inspire voters.

New York's 23rd District had not elected a Democrat since the Civil War, but Democrat Bill Owens made history by winning the seat against a divided Republican field.

In New York City, Michael Bloomberg was supposed to cruise to re-election. He outspent his Democratic opponent by millions and still just squeaked out a win.

It was a bad day to be an incumbent -- or incumbent party.

To avoid the same fate next fall, Democrats need to frame the national debate in distinctly populist terms. We need to continually name the forces and institutions that have caused such economic pain, and present ourselves as the agents of change who will return economic power to average Americans. If we do not, we will be blamed.

Political messages loaded with references to our "experience" in Government or that attempt to sound "middle of the road" when it comes to Wall Street or insurance companies will be heard by the voters as apologies for a status quo that they don't like and want to change.

John Corzine is a very progressive guy. But his ties to Wall Street were far from a plus in yesterday's balloting.

2). Independent voters will demand that Democrats deliver on our promise of change. Yesterday many of the independent voters that supported Obama in Virginia and New Jersey last year voted Republican. This trend may be slightly overstated since many Republican leaning voters who used to self-identify as Republican in exit polls are now self-identifying as Independents. But there is little question that independent voters are very impatient. In 2008 Barack Obama sold them on change and hope. To continue to invest their hope with Democrats, swing voters are going to have to see evidence that change is happening.

It won't work to make excuses -- even if some of them are legitimate. The truth is that the same economic forces that caused our problems are doing everything they can to prevent change. By next fall we don't have to win everything. We don't need to bring unemployment to 2% or have completely wrestled the health insurance companies to the mat. But independent voters are going to have to see some evidence that we have begun to make serious change.

That means we're going to have to win the battles for health care reform, change the financial regulatory system, begin creating clean energy jobs and pass immigration reform. Most importantly, it means that Democrats have to demonstrate that they are creating jobs. To accomplish that task, a great deal more economic stimulus is a must.

3). Democrats must inspire the base. In Virginia and New Jersey, the Republicans turned out more strongly than expected and many, many Obama Democrats stayed home. There were some good Democratic and base mobilization get-out-the-vote programs in both states. Mechanics weren't the main problem. The problem was inspiration.

Inspiration was Barack Obama's not-so-secret weapon in 2008. Inspiration helped him persuade independent voters who wanted change, and mobilize base voters who wanted hope. Without an inspired base, Democrats cannot hold our own in 2010 -- it's that simple.

Success at making change will help renew the faith of Independents and also help energize the base. But to be inspired, the base of the Democratic Party must be convinced that the president and his party are the champions of core progressive principles as well. A hopeful populist frame is critical to motivate mobilizable voters.

Key symbols will be very important. That's why it is so important for 2010, not only that a health insurance reform bill passes, but that it includes a public option. That's why it is so important -- to mobilize Latino voters -- that Congress pass comprehensive immigration reform.

4). Our not-so-secret weapon in 2010 is the Republican circular firing squad. Thank God for Sarah Palin -- and the entire "purge the party of all but true believers" crowd. The story of New York 23 read like a fable. The Club for Growth, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and their whole gang turn on the not-conservative-enough Republican nominee -- driving her to endorse the Democrat -- and lost control of a seat Democrats have not won in a hundred and fifty nine years.

I would say that Democrats should nurture and encourage this self-destructive right wing tendency, but they seem to do a fine job all by themselves. Luckily, the commercial interests of Limbaugh, Beck et al. are entirely congruent with the ambitions of fringe candidates like Sarah Palin and the right winger who lost in New York 23, Doug Hoffman.

Notwithstanding Republican victories in the New Jersey and Virginia governor's races, let's not forget that a lower percentage of Americans now self-identify as Republicans than at any other time in a quarter-century. The right wingers in the Republican Party are mainly talking to each other -- not to the country.

But as last night's returns demonstrated, that even with that enormous handicap, Republicans can still win elections if we allow the legitimate anger and impatience of the voters to focus on "incumbents" instead of the economic actors that have created such a deep well of desire for real change in America.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com.

Doug Hoffman: How The Conservative Lost In NY-23

2009-11-04T09:47:30Z

On a night when conservatives expected a landmark victory in New York's 23rd congressional district, the movement's anointed candidate, Doug Hoffman, instead went down in a startling defeat to Democrat Bill Owens. The official Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, had dropped out days before and thrown her support to Owens after the conservative movement backed Hoffman in a campaign to destroy her, attacking her as a closet socialist with a cynical, hidden agenda--the same terms they have used to demonize President Barack Obama.

Chris Kelly: Dud, Baby, Dud: The Lesson of Doug Hoffman

2009-11-04T07:50:24Z

"I believe America is turning the page to a new dawn." ~ Doug Hoffman, Concession Speech

Doug Hoffman lost his election last night. He was supported by a plurality of talk radio entertainers, and a majority of former half-term governors of Alaska, but it wasn't enough. An obscure quirk of constitutional law says you also need votes from voters. This is the same cruel hurdle that tripped up three of his other biggest supporters, Gary Bauer, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, all of whom ran for President of the United States, but failed the "getting votes" test, because everyone hates their guts.

With their help, and a million dollars from the Club for Growth, Doug Hoffman lost a part of New York State that had voted Republican since the best way to get from Albany to Buffalo was by canal.

Not bad for a first try.

Doug Hoffman didn't just have money to burn and the staunch support of Facebooking frost bunnies, Fox News and the Ghosts of Vanity Campaigns Past. He also had coots on the ground; an army of volunteers from the tea bag movement, the 9/12 Project and the fanatic anti-choice fringe. The problem was, they could shout at the polling places as loud as they wanted, and they did, but they didn't live there, so they weren't allowed to vote.

There's probably a lesson to that. Something about politics being local.

And beyond that, about the people who do live there resenting being told what to do.

Rush Limbaugh predicted that Hoffman would win. In fact, Hoffman's victory was such a foregone conclusion yesterday that Rush had already moved on to mocking Democrats spinning their loss.

Rush:

If Hoffman wins -- and polls suggest that he will -- the race there will be dismissed as an outlier...

Folks, I want you to print these words out. I want you to get the transcript off my website. I want you to print these out, I want you to distribute them, I want you to carry them with you, and we'll just see how close I am to being right. (When Hoffman wins) the State-Run Media will say, "New York-23, the race is more about the demise of the Republican Party and anger on the right than Obama or his policies."

Print it out. Distribute it. And carry it with you, just to see how close he was to being right: Not within a zillion light years.

Rush couldn't be right, (and he can never be wrong) because he's debating a straw man from the future. His point is that X would say Y. And that's always his point: If the thing he imagines happening happens, liberals will react in a way he imagines, and it'll be just like them, too. Except they never do, because it doesn't, so they can't, not that they would have. But I wouldn't put it past them, since they do it every time.

But not today. Imaginary liberals won't be saying New York-23 doesn't matter. Rush will.

Shannyn Moore: Palin's Boob a Fake: Hoffman Loses

2009-11-04T04:37:38Z

I tried to resist. Glenn Beck and the Teabaggers (sounds like a bad lounge act) will be making the governors' losses in New Jersey and Virginia a "referendum" on Obama's "socialist policies."

Fine. Let's just go there. Bend over, I'm driving.

When a quitter and a spitter show up to help out your campaign... don't take the money and don't sign a loyalty pledge to a crazy man WHO CAN'T VOTE FOR YOU!

Mr. Hoffman was a fake... a true voice for the tea baggin', rapture watchin', gay hatin', health fightin', ladies bakin', race baitin', forced breedin', birth denyin', war lovin' party of Glenn Beck-a-Palin-istas.

Here's your referendum, and it's solid. The GOP is sick of your rightwingery. Facebook and Fox News are the podiums you raise your fists from; fists that reach from anemic bodies, grasping for an America people have fought hard to overcome. Sarah Palin is the political fluffer to lubricate the scene. All this glam and luster got diminished with traditional Republican Flacks making the scene, like the old priest wandering inside a new megachurch. Old Fred Thompson showed up to put a big arm around Champion of the Tea Baggalicious Best Campaign Ever! Wow...Fred Thompson...Wow, I just say his name and I forget what I was saying... Fred Thompson... Wow, I just say his name and I forget what I was saying... Fred... forget about it.

I would love to be a Wood Bark Beetle on the credenza in Roger Ailes' office when he is discussing the results of the beta test of the Palin-Beck 2012 launch. That group that voted for Scozzafava represented the margin of victory for the Republicans. They would not vote for a Democrat and they sure as hell weren't going to vote for Hoffman. Ailes suddenly realizes something significant. If the Republican Party were run by moderates, the crazies would still be with the Party. But if the Party is run by the crazies, the moderates will never be there.

The best part of our country is our willingness to CHANGE. That doesn't mean Democrat or Republican...it means we take care of each other.

In her latest Facebook, Palin boasts of New Jersey's defeat of Jon Corzine, the Goldman Sachs candidate -- as if she had anything to do with it! Apparently, and not surprisingly, Palin thinks her last minute Robocall to Virginians was the difference in a race that was over before the first ballot was cast. Bob McDonnell was leading by double digits last week and never looked back. He also never requested Sarah Palin's "help". Can they super-size Governor-elect McDonnell? Maybe he comes with a side of fries.

The only thing Sarah Palin can really take credit for is New York's House District 23 electing a Democrat for the first time since before The Civil War. Late election night from Facebook, Palin invoked Ronald Reagan with "the cause goes on." What is that cause? Making government so big you call in the uterine police and tell people who they can marry? Palin goes on, "The race for New York's 23rd District is not over, just postponed until 2010." Ahem, Sarah, the 23rd district will be dissolved in redistricting in 2010 which is why it was so hard to find a Dem to run... just sayin'.

So while Limbaugh will call the GOP victories in the Governorship races a referendum of the Obama presidency, which they aren't, they will deny that NY-23 was a clear victory for president Obama, which it is. "Owens, Baby, Owens!"

Your soggy teabags are showing.

Suck it up, Buttercup!

NY 23 Election Results: Bill Owens Beats Doug Hoffman

2009-11-03T23:15:04Z

ALBANY, N.Y. — President Barack Obama's decision in June to appoint a Republican congressman to a Pentagon post has paid dividends in November now that Democrats have gained the House seat by capitalizing on a split between moderates and conservatives in the GOP.

Lawyer and retired Air Force Capt. Bill Owens won the special election Tuesday in northern New York in which the Republican candidate withdrew over the weekend under pressure from the party's right wing and GOP heavyweights endorsed the Conservative Party nominee.

Palin Actually Not That Popular In NY-23

2009-11-03T16:35:57Z

Sarah Palin may have managed to drastically alter the course of upstate New York's special congressional election with a comment on her Facebook page. But despite catapulting the Conservative Party's Doug Hoffman to a likely victory in Tuesday's election, the former Alaska Governor is, herself, relatively unpopular in the state's 23rd district.

According to Public Policy Polling, 44 percent of voters in NY-23 said they had a negative view of the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. That's one percentage point higher than those who viewed her favorably. Isolating just Republicans in the district, the numbers are better, but not overwhelmingly so. Fifty-three percent of Republican voters said they had a positive view of Palin while 32 percent said their view was negative.

The conventional wisdom was that Palin's endorsement of Hoffman gave his candidacy a tremendous boost forward -- so much so that the Republican Party's Dede Scozzafava was forced to drop her bid just days before voters went to the polls. But perhaps the power of that specific endorsement was a bit overstated.

More important, however, is what these numbers portend for future elections. NY-23 is a decidedly Republican district, with the GOP enjoying a 14-percentage point advantage in voter ID, according to Public Policy Polling. That Palin is just breaking even in one of the "reddest" areas of the northeast shows the current limitations of her political reach.

As PPP concludes: "She could overcome those kinds of numbers in a contest to get the Republican nomination but they certainly wouldn't be good enough in a general election. The North Country should be friendly ground for her and if she can't make it there it's hard to see how she can make it anywhere."

Glynnis MacNicol: A Year of Obama: Top Ten Highs and Lows of the Last Twelve Months

2009-11-03T13:36:31Z

A year ago tomorrow the nation went to polls and elected Barack Hussein Obama the 44th President of the United States. It was a joyful occasion, celebrated the world over, and variously compared to New Years Eve, the Yankees winning the World Series, the opposite of 9/11, and the proper beginning of the 21st Century.

The national political mood of Election Day 2009 would likely not be recognizable to the Obama-happy nation of 12 months ago. What a difference, etc. And yet, it's hard to believe it's only been 12 months! And a mere nine-and-a-half months of actual presidency. And truly it is only a slight exaggeration to say that in the interim it's been all Obama, all the time. With that in mind let's take a look back at the Barack Obama highlights (and some lowlights) of the last year.

Election Night - November 4, 2008

Oh that happy day. Seriously, there were a lot of happy people that day and it had very little to do with partisan politics. It was next to impossible not to be moved when President-elect Barack Obama took the stage with his family at Grant Park in Chicago, the first African American to be elected President.

>>>NEXT: Meeting the Bushes

Related:
Meeting the Bushes

The Inauguration

Barack Obama Saves Print Media

They Kill Flies, Don't They?

The Beer Summit of 2009

Of Tea Parties And Town Halls

You Lie!

Jackass!

The War Against Fox News