On Friday, political chatter focused around reports that President-elect Barack Obama is thinking about naming Sen. Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.

But while much of the talk focused on Obama's reasoning, Clinton has a few decisions to make herself. The New York Democrat is likely already running through a series of calculations, according to two members of the Clinton inner circle who spoke to the Huffington Post.

"She has a passionate network of supporters who are devoted to her. Is she going to shut all of that off? Because once you become a Secretary of State, you don't fundraise," one former aide to Clinton's presidential campaign said. "What happens with your political staff? You're really kind of upending a lot of stuff. It's a huge life change."

The aide noted that while the Senator began her campaign with only a couple-hundred thousand email addresses in her database, she now has "at least three to five million." Indeed, even as her name was being discussed non-stop on cable news channels, Clinton's political action committee sent out a fundraising pitch Friday on behalf of Al Franken, who is still locked in an extended battle with Norm Coleman over a Senate seat in Minnesota.

Among other dilemmas facing Clinton, according to the campaign aide -- who requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the situation -- is whether the Secretary of State's role in an Obama administration would be diminished by the large role in foreign affairs that will likely be played by Vice President-elect Joe Biden. In addition, there is the question of whether or not Clinton will want to give up a safe Senate seat for life for a job from which she could be summarily fired without notice.

"Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the president," the aide said. "Does she want to go from being a First Lady to a major Senator and someone with a big presidential candidacy to someone who could just be fired one day? I don't know."

There are also complicating factors brought to the decision making process by former President Clinton. They include whether or not to reveal donors to his presidential library to the Obama vetting team and the possibility that his international work with the Clinton Global Initiative could conflict with Foggy Bottom's priorities. The campaign aide said that while the Clintons were prepared to submit donor lists to Obama for the vice presidential vetting (which never came), it's an open question as to whether they would similarly eager to do so for the Secretary of State position.

Also unclear is the fate of Hillary Clinton's remaining debt from the presidential campaign, were she to take the post. Would Obama have to commit to putting his own email list to work for Clinton, effectively taking responsibility for that fundraising work while she puts in effort for his administration? On this score, aides were mum.

While agreeing with some of the concerns raised by the campaign aide, a different longtime assistant to Sen. Clinton -- going back to her days as first lady -- said there are nevertheless some strong reasons why Obama might be inclined to make the post worth Clinton's time.

"She is a beloved figure around the world. She has visited over 80 countries, as first lady and senator together," the assistant said. Noting in particular the fact that she learned as first lady how to be effective as a "backdoor diplomat," the former White House assistant said Sen. Clinton actually mastered "a lot of the intricacies of these issues before ever joining the Senate's Armed Services committee. She's tough; she had meetings with some Prime Ministers and Presidents where she had to deliver some blunt messages for us."

And there is one other symbolic reason why Obama might go the extra mile to convince Clinton to come on board, the former assistant said. "He would be choosing a very high ranking woman to be one of the faces of this country all over the world. This is the first woman's name that has come up, by the way, for one of the top four cabinet posts. So she gives him this great political asset. And she and Biden are really tight. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if Obama offered it to her."

If he does, we'll see if Hillary is interested.

Appearing on "The Rachel Maddow Show" earlier this week, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh argued that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman should keep his committee chairmanships, suggesting that the posts could be taken away at a later date if he misbehaves. But a Senate rules expert who spoke to the Huffington Post said this could prove more difficult than is presently assumed.

Attempting to put Democrats' fears to rest, Bayh told Maddow:

And the final thing I'd say is, if he does retain his chairmanship, we still exert oversight over him and control over him. He doesn't have the ability to just do whatever he wants. The caucus still has the right to remove him from that position at any time if he starts going off on some kind of tangent.

Bayh's rationale appeared persuasive to some Democrats, including former Clinton campaign operative Phil Singer, who wrote on his blog that the Indiana Senator's take was "not unreasonable."

But former Democratic Senate staffer Martin Paone suggested Bayh is under-educated on this matter. Paone, who became as the "secretary to the majority" in the Senate starting in 2001, notes that Republicans harbored similar desires in the past, but never executed them due to the threat of a filibuster.

"It takes a Senate resolution to change a chairmanship, and that resolution could be subject to a filibuster," Paone told the Huffington Post. Put simply, under Bayh's proposed scenario, Republicans would have every reason to filibuster a new Senate resolution taking Lieberman's chairmanship away if he was proving an effective antagonist of President Obama.

Paone noted that a similar game of political chess played out in the Senate's recent history. "We had a similar situation in the past with a Republican moderate senator, Mark Hatfield from Oregon, who voted the wrong way in the eyes of [former Sen. Rick] Santorum and others on the constitutional amendment on a balanced budget," Paone said. "There were rumblings they wanted to take his chairmanship away. But the ranking member on the committee was [Democratic] Sen. Robert Byrd, who wrote Hatfield a nice note saying, 'if they ever try to take your chairmanship away, I'll make sure we [Democrats] will filibuster such a resolution."

According to Paone, "the time to take a chairmanship away is when everybody is being appointed [at the beginning of the new Congress]. Everybody has an investment in that resolution. In order for everybody to benefit, that resolution has to pass. It's much more difficult to cherry pick in this fashion, to take one Senator's chairmanship, at a later date."

Asked if Bayh understands this complexity, Paone said "I'm sure he probably doesn't. There aren't that many people up there who do. It's not every day you want to change a chairmanship. And since the Hatfield matter never materialized, I think that shows why it's not as easy as some might think."

In a gentle yet clear nudge to President-elect Barack Obama, Sen. Russ Feingold released a statement on Thursday calling for "new leadership" in the nation's various intelligence services.

"I am confident President-elect Obama understands the need for new leadership of the intelligence community and will appoint competent, capable people who will work aggressively to ensure the safety and security of Americans without undermining our laws and Constitution," Feingold said in the statement.

"For eight years, the current Administration has shown contempt for the rule of law, including in intelligence-related matters, while repeatedly refusing to work cooperatively with Congress. At the same time, the Administration has failed to develop comprehensive strategies to protect our nation against our most immediate threat, al Qaeda and its affiliates. New leadership is needed to move our intelligence policies in the right direction," Feingold's statement concludes.

Feingold -- perhaps the Senate's most indefatigable civil libertarian -- has been a stalwart opponent of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, as well as extensive searches of Americans' laptops and other property at airports by the TSA. It would be practically impossible to read his statement as anything but a reaction to a Wall Street Journal report earlier this week that claimed Obama is "unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies."

Alaska-based GOP pollster David Dittman, who worked for Sen. Ted Stevens during this year's primary race, believes Democratic challenger Mark Begich is all but certain to expand his current razor-thin lead and snatch the seat.

"I don't think Stevens can come back," Dittman said, noting that he thinks the remaining trove of uncounted ballots will help Begich "increase his lead."

Even if Begich's advantage grows, however, Dittman believes it's highly unlikely that Stevens will concede the race until every last ballot is counted. "He's probably waiting in Washington," Dittman said. "I haven't talked to him since the evening of the election, when I called and just told him I was sorry for the way it turned out."

Dittman believes early and absentee ballots, which comprise the approximately 40,000 votes left to count, will likely reflect Begichs' overall advantage so far among those who took advantage of either process. Heavy early voting occurred in the period that directly followed Stevens' conviction on seven felony counts of making false statements on his Senate financial disclosure forms.

But as details of alleged prosecutorial misconduct and strange juror behavior began to leak out, Dittman says his own private polling showed a slight up-tick in regard for Stevens over the last weekend before election day. "I think Alaskans began to wonder that maybe this was a kangaroo court, maybe the Senator was not guilty, and so they came to be much more sympathetic. ... That's why we had outcome on election day. But now we're counting votes cast prior to that."

As for what Stevens will face when he returns after the loss Dittman is predicting, the pollster said, "it's not a case where he'll be in disgrace, in my opinion." Responding to one of the many rumors regarding fallout from the long-time Senator's legal predicament, Dittman said Stevens might not even accept a pardon from President George W. Bush, were one offered.

"I don't even know if he would accept a pardon," Dittman said. "On the one hand, it would be deserved, in the sense that he shouldn't have been [convicted]. But a pardon also has some connotation of guilt. I do feel certain, though, that he is gonna fight [the conviction] and go through the appeals process."

Overall, in Alaska, Dittman predicted that Stevens will remain revered in the state as a man "who did a lot of good."

"In spite of appearances, he doesn't have a dishonest bone in his body." Regarding the $250,000 of renovations on his house provided by a campaign contributor, Dittman said: "In his mind, they weren't gifts. They were things he didn't ask for, didn't want, and didn't expect. But it's hard not to be appreciative. ... If someone gives you a book or scarf for Christmas or your birthday, even if you don't read it or wear it, you're still not gonna tell people who gave it to you to get our of your life. The reality is so different from the national perception. And most Alaskans recognize that."

Dittman noted one other consequence of the Begich victory he expects. "Mayor Begich's win is gonna simplify Sarah Palin's life a lot. It'll take that option [of possibly filling Stevens' Senate seat] off the table. When it's clear that won't be an issue, she can just focus on being a Governor."

As Iraqi legislators prepare to vote this weekend on a proposed agreement with Washington regarding the legal status of American troops in the country next year, one U.S. Congressman wants to know whether the plan will tie President-elect Barack Obama's hands.

Massachusetts Democrat Bill Delahunt's Foreign Affairs oversight subcommittee is set to take up the topic of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in a hearing next week that will feature at least four international legal experts.

Congressman Delahunt has long been on record opposing a new security agreement signed by President Bush so close to the end of his second term. "I think the wiser course, clearly, would have been to seek an extension of the [current] UN mandate," Delahunt told the Huffington Post. "I said this back when we didn't know who would be leading next administration. Now we know it's Obama. But we need to have a dialogue, and a thoughtful, reasoned approach to this whole concept of an agreement."

Delahunt cites the ongoing presidential transition in America as well as upcoming provincial elections in Iraq as good reasons to delay inking any long-term security deal. And indeed, Obama's election has scrambled political calculations among Iraq's political factions, with some Shiite parties appearing more willing to negotiate immediately after his election.

The announcement of January 31, 2009 as the date of long-delayed provincial elections in Iraq has also created the opportunity for parties outside Baghdad's ruling coalition to campaign against the deal with Washington -- despite the fact that Iraqi negotiators may have already obtained more significant concessions than they would receive from an extended UN mandate, were the SOFA deal to dissolve.

That irony was noted by an Iraq expert who advised Obama during the campaign. The scholar, who requested anonymity because of his ongoing advisory role to Obama's transition team, said "there's all sorts of things in [the negotiated] SOFA that put restrictions on unilateral American operations, the ability of U.S. forces to detain Iraqis for security reasons, and other things that Iraqis see as intrusions on their sovereignty. ... A lot of the specific things [Iraqis] find problematic right now would be worse under a simple extension of the UN mandate."

"I think that in their private moments, most Iraqi politicians realize that. Publicly, they're just nervous about expressing it," the Iraq expert said. "The biggest concern is within the Shia community. The Sadrists are very much against the deal. But now [Nouri al-Maliki's] DAWA party is competing with other Shiite parties for votes. The leaders in all parties are leery of getting too far out in front, in terms of supporting the agreement, because if it agreement fails, their rivals could benefit [at the polls]. ... What will be interesting, because this [election] does come pretty close to the transition of administrations, is the question of agreeing to the SOFA or a renewal of the UN mandate. That's the real wild card."

For Delahunt, that wild card is reason enough to delay any security agreement with Iraq until the next president takes office -- and perhaps after Iraq's provincial elections, as well.

"Too much is up in the air on both sides," Delahunt said, adding that an extended UN mandate would be easy to secure, despite past rumors that Russia would oppose it. "I met with Russia's ambassador to the UN, and he told me Russia is not going to oppose [it] if it's something the Iraqi government requests."

For his part, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) tells the Huffington Post that while he doesn't necessarily agree with Delahunt that the UN mandate is the best way to go, it may well become a necessity if time runs out. "I certainly support what the Bush administration is trying to do in securing immunity for American soldiers," the California Democrat told the Huffington Post. "Given the pushback from Iraqis on that, I wonder whether or not it doesn't make sense to have a six month extension of the UN mandate, past those provincial elections, and the transition of administrations here."

Additionally, Berman said that if the revised security agreement binds the executive branch in any serious way past January 20, 2009, it should be presented to Congress. "If there's a provision in there that requires some kind of commitment by the U.S. to Iraqis past Jan. 20, or that limits the next administration's flexibility, it should come to Congress. And on the immunities issue, I would like to know and hear directly form the top military guys on the Joint Chiefs' staff, that they are comfortable the agreement protects our uniformed personnel. I think they very much have to make that showing to us."

Berman said he has been in occasional touch with the Obama transition team on these matters. But he has kept a degree of distance for now, in order to let the full operation get up to speed. "Right now, they're making sure they get the best people into key positions ... and I think it's very important that they move quickly. In all fairness, I have sort of purposely tried to give them some time. Though it's about time for me to get a little more directly engaged with them about this."

Two recently retired CIA analysts have told the Huffington Post that John McLaughlin, a former deputy CIA director, is being considered by the Obama transition team for the role of Director of National Intelligence.

Former CIA official Margaret Henoch, an early skeptic of debunked Iraq war intelligence provided by the source known as "Curveball," said Obama intelligence transition chief John Brennan is also being considered for the position.

Another agency analyst seconded the impression that McLaughlin is the name du jour in intelligence circles, expressing some reservation about the choice. "The thing about the hopefulness about change was that there really would be change," said the analyst, who requested anonymity due to having retired this year.

"Recycling people through, I just don't love it. So I'm sad to see re-treads, frankly," the analyst said. "Though I see why people want to reach out to experienced hands. Part of it is that they're in a difficult situation. ... The question is how you really reach down into the mid or lower levels, and find some smart people to talk to, and ask: where is the skill, where is the talent? Give me some names that nobody's heard of."

Separately, Henoch said she would rather see Sen. Chuck Hagel in the post.

"I think he's the right kind of person for the job: somebody with the right mix of stature, credibility and experience," Henoch said. "The guy putting order into [the intelligence community] has to be somebody with no further ambitions, since it's a dead end, politically. I would also say it shouldn't be somebody from the military, unless you could somehow convince Colin Powell to take it on," Henoch added.

Powell, who is reputed to not want a day-to-day role in any administration capacity, is nevertheless someone who "has seen personally what happens when you get burned by bad intelligence," Henoch noted.

As for some of those officials rumored to be heading Obama's intelligence transition team -- specifically, former National Counterterrorism Center chief John Brennan and former CIA intelligence-analysis director Jami Miscik -- Henoch was less complimentary.

"Both Brennan and Miscik have horrible baggage. Jami Miscik was running the analytic side when the Curveball analysis was forwarded. I was told by her then-deputy that they never realized there were ever any problems with Curveball, which is completly damning. He ran [the National Counterterrorism Center] for not very long. I'm not sure that two people brought through the ranks by George Tenet have the credibility, knowledge in the business, or the objectivity to put the agency in a good place."

According to reports, Miscik admitted to Senate investigators that she prodded some of her analysts to "stretch to the maximum the evidence you had" when trying to link al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein back in 2002.

The more recently retired CIA analyst had a more positive view of Miscik, but shared Henoch's disappointment over the raft of familiar names. "[Miscik is] really smart. I personally like her a lot. Obama could do way worse. And it's not that I don't think that people shouldn't get a second chance. I'm a big believer in second chances. But I think what this town needs desperately is massive change."

Henoch put it in similar, if slightly sharper terms. "Obama should take the top off of every single [intelligence] agency there is. Don't let those guys stick around."

In a soon-to-be broadcast interview with C-SPAN's Steve Scully, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice discussed the implications of Barack Obama's victory at the polls, as well as the state of international relations that he will inherit as president. The full transcript, which has already been posted online, shows Rice in a reflective and history-conscious mood, as she describes her own experience as a victim of racism in 1960's Birmingham. Also, in discussing George W. Bush's forthcoming post-presidency, she revealed that the nation's 43rd chief executive sees himself as "the dissident president," given the fact that he is "drawn to those people who are willing to fight under dangerous circumstances, who fight courageously for freedom."

When asked about the global impact of Obama's election, Rice said:

I think what you really saw here was that race is no longer the factor in American identity and American life, and that's a huge step forward.

I've just been also in the Middle East, and there it was seen that a country that had such deep racial divisions - I've said myself that America had a birth defect, slavery - and that we could overcome that and that you could have, of course, this really quantum leap to a black - the election of the first African American president, but really something that's been going on a while. When you look at American life now, you see that America has had a black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (inaudible) in Colin Powell, back-to-back black Secretaries of State; Tiger Woods, probably the most recognizable athlete; Oprah Winfrey, someone who transcends race in many ways, as the most popular figure. I think what is being seen around the world is that old wounds can be overcome. And in a world where difference is still a license to kill, that's an extremely important message.

Rice put America's racial progress in perspective by describing her own experiences as a young girl:

Well, I was a child in Birmingham, Alabama, and in 1963, which had been a very, very violent year, with police dogs in the park that Bull Connor had sicced on innocent protesters, or the constant bombings that were in neighborhoods like my own neighborhood in Birmingham, a nice, middle-class neighborhood that was shattered by bombings every several weeks, and then you had the events at 16th Street Baptist Church. And I remember very well being at church, at my father's church which was just down the street, Westminster Presbyterian, and there was a kind of rumble. And everyone wondered what it was. It was long before cell phones, of course. But somehow the word began to spread that there had been a bombing at the church. And as it became clear that little girls had died in that church, I think the terror, really homegrown terrorism, had come to Birmingham in a very dramatic way. And Denise McNair, one of the little girls that was killed in that church, had been a friend of mine, a kindergarten friend of mine, and it's hard to believe that that Birmingham gave way, first of all, that the successor to Bull Connor is actually a black woman, it's hard to believe. But over time, of course, America has begun to heal her - her racial wounds, and that culminated in the election of Barack Obama. ...

I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama; it was hard not to feel racism. Whether it was going into a store and hearing my mother tell the store clerk, well, no, she's not going to try that dress on in a storeroom. If she can't try it on in the fitting room like all little girls do, then we won't buy that dress. Or shortly after the Civil Rights Act had passed in 1964, going through a hamburger stand and being given a hamburger that was all onions.

Of course racism was a daily companion in Birmingham. But what was remarkable was that I had parents who refused to let it become crippling. They refused to let me be bitter. They refused to let me use it as an excuse, and they somehow managed to send the message that racism was somebody else's problem, not mine.

When asked about Iraq, Rice conceded that many mistakes have been made, and that important lessons took a long time to be properly absorbed, but asserted that history would ultimately judge the administration kindly:

There are a lot of things that could have been done differently. I think that it took awhile to really understand how to help a country that was really completely destroyed in its fabric, not just its institutions, but the fabric of society by the years of tyranny under Saddam Hussein and how to help it recover. In retrospect, we did a lot from Baghdad, a lot from the top down. The provinces and the tribes were clearly part of the answer. And it took a while to recognize that the complete integration of the civilian and military effort through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams would empower the provinces to create friends, for instance, the sons of Iraq and Anbar, who would then themselves with our help expel al-Qaida.

I believe strongly that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was right, and it was perhaps the most important change in the Middle East, and I think we will come to see it that way. But how really desperately fragmented Iraq was; I think that was something we frankly didn't see. I know, too, that we did not have the right institutional structure for postwar operations. It's funny because we didn't have the right institutional structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. We left it to the UN.

At several points during the wide-ranging interview, Rice gave her own personal assurance that Obama will work to "defend American interests" in the face of global threats -- perhaps something of a balm to Republicans who declared themselves suspicious of the President-elect on this point during the campaign. Rice also declined to pin the beginning of partisan divisiveness in Washington on Bush's presidency, saying that the end of the Cold War -- and the collapse of a common enemy -- may have spurred contentiousness in the capital:

And when communism was defeated, I think we looked around and all of a sudden there wasn't that common thread holding -particularly on the foreign policy side - together the Democrats of Scoop Jackson, for interest, with the Republicans of Ronald Reagan who would have viewed communism very similarly. And so I think we've had to rebuild that.

But if you really look now at the foreign policy challenges, I think there's a lot of consistent -- consistency of view, a lot of common vision of an America that can sustain our friends and that can keep our enemies at bay. There may be tactical differences - do you talk to these people, do you not talk to those people? But I'd be very surprised if there is anyone who believes that an Iran with a nuclear weapon is a good idea. In fact, President-elect Obama just made that very clear to the Iranians. I'm quite certain that there's an understanding that we need to stand by the new democracies that have been borne in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon, that our good friend Israel in the Middle East deserves our support because we share values and we share an abiding interest in Israel's security in the Middle East.

As for her experiences in dealing with a presidential transitions, Rice said the state of several current crises mandated a smoother-than-average process:

I want to be very clear. My predecessor, Sandy Berger, the National Security Advisor, was helpful and I don't think we had problems in our transition. But a more structured transition now is important because America can't afford to miss a beat in terms of fighting these terrorists around the world, in terms of maintaining the momentum toward a stable Iraq that has been established, in terms of working with this young, democratic Pakistani Government on it's economic difficulties and also on fighting militancy, on sustaining the work with the Afghan Government that every day faces these terrorists on its territory; we have troops at war, we have men and women both in uniform and civilians who are on the front lines, and they can't afford that there's any slip between the teams that are - the team that is coming in and the team that is leaving. And President Bush has made very clear that all of us, at the cabinet level on down, are to do everything that we can to make sure that our counterparts are ready to take over on day one. And I'm devoted to that. The Department's devoted to that. We've been spending a lot of time on transition. In fact, we have a management retreat every year, and we devoted this year's management retreat in October to the questions of transition. ...

Well, we have a transition team that has been working for some time. It is headed by two very senior career people: Bill Burns, who is the highest ranking career person in the Department, he's the Under Secretary for Political Affairs; and on the management side, the Under Secretary for Management Affairs, Pat Kennedy. They are making certain that there is appropriate space, appropriate transition briefings, that all of the important papers, where we are on everything, will be handed off. I expect when my successor is named to spend a lot of time talking about what we have done, what remains to be done.

Rice also said President Bush thinks of himself as a "dissident president," given his affinity for those "who are willing to fight under dangerous circumstances, who fight courageously for freedom." Rice predicted that theme could become a central plank of Bush's post-presidency, saying: "I'm sure that whatever he does, he'll keep association with people like that, people like Natan Sharansky of Russia and others who have never let freedom's light go out, even when it required great courage to keep it burning."

As for her future plans, Rice said she is an "academic at heart," and is thus prepared to return to her post at Stanford, where she has been on leave. The secretary said she also hopes to write several books once her work on the national stage is finished.

"I want to write a book about American foreign policy. I want to write a book about my folks, my parents. I want to write - I want to think about what I can do to engage what they call tweeners now, or 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds, and maybe open up the world to them," she said. "Because I get so many letters from kids that age - so many conservative even clerics in the Middle East will say, "Oh, my granddaughter really loves you. Would you send her a note?" And somehow, that age group - American kids who need to engage the world and want to learn languages and know that there's a big world out there, not to be afraid of but to want to be a part of, as well as kids abroad who need to know America. I'd like to see if there's some way that I can use the platform that I have, the fact that a lot of those kids know my name or know at least that I'm the lady from America, I'd like to see if I could do something to spark their interest in the world."

Barack Obama's transition team pushed back on Wednesday morning against an AP report claiming that former Sen. Sam Nunn and former Secretary of State Warren Christopher are playing an integral role in the presidential transition.

"Senator Sam Nunn will play an informal senior adviser role throughout the defense transition process. His expertise and the respect he has earned will be invaluable to ensure a smooth transition," Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Spokesperson Stephanie Cutter said in a statement.

"Secretary Christopher is deeply respected in the United States and throughout the international community. However, he is not playing a role in the transition process. There's a lot of disinformation out there. We're working hard to put the agency review teams together and expect they'll be announced this week and inside the agencies by the end of the week."

The AP reported:

Nunn's role has been described by others, speaking anonymously because the transition teams have not been announced, as the leader of Obama's defense transition. Similarly, a senior administration official said former Secretary of State Warren Christopher would advise Obama on his State Department transition...

Nunn and Christopher would be part of a national security brain trust for Obama that is heavy on former Clinton administration officials, including possible national security adviser James Steinberg, a former State Department official.

The wire service has since updated their story to include Cutter's response.

The fact that disinformation is creeping out is not terribly surprising. With literally thousands of journalists attempting to ferret out snippets of news from what appears to be a highly disciplined and tight-lipped transition team, half-true rumors and innuendo can be easily magnified beyond their importance.

When a party gains Senate seats over the course of two consecutive elections, conventional wisdom holds that the bill is set to come due the third time around.

But even as the media keeps its focus on 2008's lingering Senate contests, there are some early indications that 2010 could be another strong year for Democrats. Republicans will once again be defending more seats (18-15) unless several Democrats retire unexpectedly from the body in the next 24 months.

Jennifer Duffy, an analyst with the Cook Report, says it's shaping up to be another bad year for Republicans. "This does not look to be a good cycle for them," she said. Duffy noted that by the time 2012 rolls around, Republicans may finally win some seats back, since the Democrats will be defending 24 seats, to their nine. "But still," she added, "it's a long, very, very sad road, if you're the GOP."

A Democratic official, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly about races so far in the future, echoed Duffy's analysis (though with a bit more glee).

In Kentucky, where Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell just faced a tight race, Republicans should get ready to do it all over again (and then some) with Sen. Jim Bunning, who won in 2004 by just over one percentage point. "He was sort of a sloth the last time, just barely getting over the line," the Dem operative said. With any kind of national money targeting him in 2010, the operative predicted Bunning, if he were to run, would lose.

The Cook Report's analyst offered some agreement. "Democrats have a bench. But they've got to get the right candidate. The advantage last time was that it took Democrats so long to find a candidate. I don't think that's going to happen this time. I also don't think that McConnell's [victory] forebodes anything for this race."

In Kansas, the Democratic operative said current Gov. Kathleen Sebelius could conceivably run for the seat likely being vacated by Sen. Sam Brownback. "She's already won two statewide elections in a very red state. She'd be the strongest candidate of either party."

Duffy agreed Sebelius would be a strong candidate, but added, "she's probably gonna get a primary" should she run. "Republicans have a couple of House members, of course," she noted, as well as a crowded field in the governor's race that could thin out if one or two Republicans look for less-contested electoral ground. Meanwhile, Duffy is not even convinced that Brownback -- who said he would only serve two terms -- is truly resigning. "Until Brownback definitely says 'I'm out,' and she announces, I have the seat as lean Republican... People have been known to change their minds."

In Arizona, the Democratic operative said "not many people think John McCain is going to run for reelection. If he does, he wins. If he doesn't, Gov. Janet Napolitano could make a very strong candidate." As for Sen. David Vitter, the operative cheekily observed that "going to hookers is never a great platform" to run for reelection on. Duffy said "one of two things likely to happen there: with Vitter, either rational minds prevail, and the seat is open -- or he gets a very serious and competitive primary challenge."

Elsewhere on the map, the Democratic operative said Mel Martinez in Florida, Kit Bond in Missouri, and George Voinovich in Ohio could all face tough races. "Specter isn't getting any younger, and he always has a tough race," the Democrat added. "I don't know if Chris Matthews can beat him, but plenty of others can. It's hard to see who's vulnerable [on our side]."

But Duffy has a couple of suggestions for Democrats to worry about. While she says Republicans have no bench with which to challenge Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, "Harry Reid's gonna get a race in Nevada, almost no question. I actually think Barbara Boxer's gonna get a race; she sure thinks she is. One of the names bandied about is Schwarzenegger, and there are other names out there. Meg Whitman is looking at it. And Carly Fiorina -- what kind of fun would that be?"

Additionally, if Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye were to retire, Duffy thinks the open seat race could be competitive. Meanwhile, there is the question of who Illinois Gov. Rod Blogojevich appoints to fill Barack Obama's soon-to-be-open seat. "I'm sort of interested to see who gets that appointment," Duffy said. "Valerie Jarrett's probably not going to get much of a race. Jesse Jackson Jr. could get a primary from a downstate Dem. And Tammy Duckworth would get a primary."

Finally, though, the gossip du jour, according to Duffy, is that a certain Alaskan Republican could challenge incumbent Lisa Murkowski. "Take a stab in the dark," Duffy said. "Somebody who's already taken on one more Murkowski." She is referring, of course, to Gov. Sarah Palin. In tracking down the rumor, Duffy said she heard that Palin was thinking about challenging Murkowski in 2004 -- to the point where then-Sen. Rick Santorum paid a visit to convince then-Mayor Palin to take a pass. "Lisa's not her father," Duffy said. "She's done a good job. And if Stevens loses and/or is expelled, there's a pretty important seniority argument to be made. My boss likes to say to candidates who are thinking of doing risky things, 'does anybody who loves you think this is a good idea? The answer in this case should be 'no.'"

Overall, despite all the unknown challengers and unknown fundraising numbers, Republicans are facing another tough year of Senate races. "Three cycles in a row, go figure. They're just looking at an uphill climb."

Reaction to Barack Obama's victory over John McCain has been enthusiastic around the world, not least in the Arab-language press. But a few editorial writers in the region wonder what will actually change.

"The Arabs [who prayed for Obama to win] are mistaken if they bet that the president of change in America will return the favor," the United Arab Emirates' daily Al-Khaleej cautioned Thursday, expressing the by-now familiar concern that "Israeli interests" will "govern [Obama's] vision of the Arab region and the Middle East."

The Middle East Media Research Institute isolated some of the more incendiary morsels the day after the election, in a piece titled "Initial Arab Media Reactions to Obama's Election." In it, MEMRI quoted one of the most hardline conservative Iranian dailies (not an "Arab media" source but a Persian one, for those keeping track at home), Johmuri-ye Eslami, which wrote on Nov. 5 that: "The most that that black man can do in the White House is to replace some of the staff and change some ceremonial procedures. He will never manage to change the structure of the American regime, which was established by capitalists, Zionists, and racists."

By contrast, Al-Jazeera TV noted that Obama's election was unsettling some Israeli hawks, reporting that "officials in Tel Aviv [are] concerned that Obama will try to bring the Islamic world closer to the United States by pressuring Israel into offering concessions."

When not attempting to predict the future of political agreements, however, many Arabic newspapers were cheered America's historic milestone. Particularly ebullient was a Thursday editorial in Saudi Arabia's Okaz, penned by Khalaf Al-Harbi:

For the millionth time, America disappointed its critics and mocked those who expressed doubts about the truth of its democracy. For the millionth time, America proved that it is a republic of man no matter his ethnicity, religion or cultural background. For the millionth time, American proved, by action and not merely words, that it is the country of equal opportunity, social justice, real freedom, and creative democracy. We, who live outside America, do not love this giant empire because of its cruel hegemony over the world. Yet we cannot deceive ourselves by hiding our admiration for this reinvigorated American spirit that is not blinded by might or corrupted by supremacy for the United States, whether we liked it or not, is always capable of reinventing itself and mocking all other countries of the world that cannot show the same degree of dedication and loyalty to their professed principles.

While reading pro-American prose in a pro-government Saudi paper is not so unusual, Al-Harbi went on to trash President George W. Bush in terms slightly harsher than one normally reads in the Kingdom:

George Bush, Jr. distorted the image of America by replacing the image of Lady Liberty with that of Guantanamo Bay. He destroyed all the humanitarian values that America brags about respecting with the miserable debacle of the Abu-Ghraib prison. He established a department for homeland security and made the Generals of Pentagon his only outlet for communicating with the rest of the world. He set about spreading democracy through aircraft carriers so he committed in Afghanistan the most terrible humanitarian crimes when the richest country in the world crushed one of the poorest countries in the world then he committed in Iraq the most terrible cultural crime when the newest civilization on earth tried to destroy one of the earliest civilizations on earth.

Thus Bush almost singlehandedly destroyed the American empire because of his rashness. Maybe this threat of collapse is still alive today but America armed itself yesterday against this threat with its real armor, which enabled it to ascend to the leadership of the world. This armor is much stronger than all of its ballistic missiles: it is the armor of equality, democracy and the endless ability to change. This is the real America that cannot be denied even by its enemies. This America doesn't care about who you are or where you come from, as it only cares about what you can present to the American nation. I am almost certain that Al-Qaeda, as an example, would never dare to appoint a man of African origins as its head despite all its religious values about equality between humans.

In Kuwait, columnist Ja'afar Rajab instructed the region's citizens to rise to America's example. "The people that make their own history produce not only historical men, but men that make history as well. That is how nations make their history while we continue to make a history of quicksand," Rajab wrote in Al-Rai al-Aam, adding:

[W]hen [Americans] carry the slogan of change, the sons hold the hands of their white fathers to change their white opinions because they want to vote for their children and their futures -- while the 'lost' peoples have fathers who drag their children like 'goats' to vote according to the tribal, sectarian or partisan whims of the fathers! ... There are no constants in America except that America and everything else in the world changes. The Americans keep abreast of this change and so they remain ahead of everyone else while the rest of the people, who believe changes are blasphemous, remain standing still in their outdated clothes looking like a scarecrow in an empty field!

As for us Arabs, we must curse the Americans out of envy because we believe that America is Masonic and that elections are only a hoax managed by Jews and that Obama and McCain are two faces of the same coin and that Obama will not change his policies towards us. We have yet to realize that when we start looking at all people as equal, when we stop distributing and retracting citizenship as if it was a cinema ticket, when we start believing that change is the only constant in life and stop holding on to the past, and when we believe in the humanity of all people, and in the will and freedom of individuals, then and only then will the world change the way it looks at us! The scene that stirred my emotions the most was that of a young American woman who shouted in front of the cameras: 'we changed the world.' She pushed me to wonder: what did we ever change, other than the diapers of our children!

In an interesting twist, one of the campaign's final mini-controversies made it into the Arabic media's post-election analysis. In praising Obama, London's Arabic-language Al Hayat noted that the president-elect "knew the late Palestinian writer and thinker Edward Said and is friends with the prominent Palestinian writer and professor Rashid Khalidi, who enjoys great respect in the West and Arab circles."

"The Republican candidate, John McCain, used Khalidi's name as a criticism of Obama during the campaign, even though the friendship with Khalidi is a positive mark for Obama," the paper wrote the morning after Obama's victory. "Certainly, Arab expectations of Obama's victory clash with the interests of the United States and its permanent ally, Israel. But at the least, the prospect of change with Obama is better than continuing the policy of war, tension and blind support for Israel, without listening to the other side."

What kind of relationship with Syria will Barack Obama inherit from President George W. Bush?

As the New York Times reported Friday, Barack Obama's election seems to have already improved negotiations in Iraq regarding a proposed agreement over the status of American troops there. But there are signs that the president will make relations with the country next door more difficult.

And in the twilight of his presidency, Bush has signaled a willingness to continue to press Syria hard all the way to the end. Barely more than one week before election day, the Bush administration approved a cross-border commando raid into the country, launched from Iraq. The purpose of the airstrike was to kill a targeted Al Qaeda leader, but the Syrian government alleged that most casualties were civilians.

While Damascus fumed in the wake of the strike -- shutting down the local American school and green-lighting street protests by citizens -- the Obama campaign's foreign policy shop refused all discussion.

Compared to Obama's stated preference for transgressing the Pakistan border when targeting Al-Qaeda leaders, the silence on the Syria raid became even more curious. Asked by the Huffington Post on Nov. 1 whether Obama approved of the attack, a national security flak on the Obama campaign responded: "We're just not commenting on Syria."

For its part, The Economist called the timing of Bush's raid into Syria "striking," given its proximity to the election, and further asked if Bush might be attempting to give Obama a "poisoned chalice" of poor U.S.-Syrian relations.

Ploughshares Fund president Joe Cirincione is inclined to agree with that assessment, telling the Huffington Post: "Look, the cowboys are still in charge for another 70-odd days. I would expect more of this, since some of these people want to push the envelope as far as they can until their fingers are pried off the levers of power. We could see more of that, unless President Bush steps in and says, 'take your foot off the gas, it's over.'"

Cirincione said this desire is likely not the only force driving the continued aggressive stance toward Syria, however.

"There are basically three motivations," he said. "One is just the warriors going after their guy. Second is the more ideological officers and civilians who want to establish this principle: that we will cross borders at will. The third driver is, well, I wouldn't put it past some people around Vice President Cheney to try and intentionally poison relationships with Syria and Iran, and other countries that they consider our mortal enemies. I think all three of those are operating and are hard to tell from afar which was the principal driver in this case."

Some Americans might be surprised to learn that there are relations with Syria left to poison. But in recent months, there have been some signs that Damascus might be willing to play what Washington would consider a more "constructive" role in the Middle East. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with her Syrian counterpart in 2007. And, perhaps more importantly, Israel has recently begun tentative peace talks with Syria, which are being mediated by Turkey.

At the same time, in Lebanon -- a country that was dominated by Syria for nearly three decades before its withdrawal in 2005 -- some citizens are worried that Obama might be willing to cut lenient deals with their old antagonist. According to American University of Beirut professor and journalist Rami Khouri, some in Lebanon "fear the next U.S. president will lower the commitment to Lebanon, and deal with Syria. ... So there is concern, yes."

Further complicating the status of Obama's future approach to Syria, Middle East expert Brian Katulis from the Center for American Progress says the parallels to Pakistan go beyond Bush's cross-border raids. "Like in Pakistan, there's a great deal of internal uncertainty about who's actually in control of certain situations in certain parts of the country," Katulis said, citing a series of mysterious attacks, including that of a legendary Hezbollah operative staying in Syria as well as the recent sniper assassination of a close adviser to President Bashar al-Assad.

But Katulis added that the relationship Obama will inherit is not just up to Bush, either. "The clear ties and the hosting of terror organizations in Damascus has long been an item of concern to the Congress ... going back to 1980s," he said. "All of that is not easily overwritten by the swoop of a presidential pen."

Given all these complications, Katulis believes that Obama's opening moves with Syria will be cautious and measured. "The game is going to be to test their intentions, to better understand the strategic calculus of Syria. We already see a process in place. ... Some of the more pragmatist, career officers in the State Department have been keen on engaging Syria more and more over the last 18 months, on issues like Iraqi refugees. I suspect the Obama administration will build on those steps, and that it will not move in a very robust, 'grand bargain' sort of direction. At least until we can test the intentions of the Syrian regime."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is often mentioned as a potential Bush 43 holdover in the new Obama administration. According to most reports, Gates is not only popular among the service branches, but also with Democrats, who have appreciated the secretary's moderate instincts during his time at the helm following Donald Rumsfeld.

But not everyone is sold on the idea. One former high-ranking defense official now advising Obama told the Huffington Post that keeping Gates around is "the dumbest thing I've ever heard." The former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he has told the Obama transition team as much.

"Most people don't realize that you can't just keep Gates," the former official said. "You've gotta keep some part of his team. We're not going to keep Gates and then appoint a new deputy, a whole new staff." The official, who spoke from personal experience within the bureaucracy, said that as an administrator, "you need your own people. And a lot of those people [under Gates] were neoconservative architects of the [Iraq] war."

The official cited in particular Defense Department undersecretary for policy Eric Edelman as a key assistant to Gates who should not remain in an Obama administration. Edelman, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney from 2001 to 2003, courted controversy last year when he criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton's position on the Iraq war for "reinforc[ing] enemy propaganda."

Recently-retired Army officer Bob Mackey said that the concern over Gates's staff had some merit, but might not be too difficult for the Obama transition team to address, should they decide to keep Gates in his post. "It all depends what level [of assistants] we're talking about," Mackey said, agreeing with the former defense official that Gates's "undersecretaries and assistant undersecretaries, you'd need to replace those people."

However, Mackey argued, the benefits of keeping Gates might be worth that trouble. "The argument, besides the fact that everybody likes Gates, is 'don't change boats in midstream.' He's actually listened to the commanders in field, instead of battling them back and forth."

Mackey also said Gates could be a serviceable interim secretary until retired four-star Gen. Anthony Zinni is available to serve in 2010 (since he only retired from the military in 2000). "Zinni's the guy you really want in there," Mackey said.

The former defense official, by contrast, had another person in mind for the department. "I would push [Sen. Chuck] Hagel. He's very well qualified," the official said. "And again, Obama's talked about being bipartisan. But the best thing would be the fact that he was an enlisted soldier in Vietnam. Think of the message would send to our young troops. Plus, he has management experience: he was number two in the VA and he started his own company [in the private sector]. It's not like this is a guy who's never managed anything."

As for another rumored DOD short-lister, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, the source said he could make a good choice as well. "But again, the question is in terms of that signal that you send. You and I know who Richard is, but what about people around the world? What you want to do with Cabinet selections is send a signal about what you want to do."

Though some conservatives are making conciliatory noises about Barack Obama now that the election is over, Jill Stanek is not among them. The former Illinois nurse, whose claims about a supposed rash of abortions of "born alive" babies at a Chicago hospital snowballed into the election-season charge that Obama supported "infanticide," wrote Thursday:

"Barack Obama was elected president despite the fact he supports abortion into the fourth trimester. [Ed. Note: Stanek uses "fourth trimester" deliberately to indicate abortions of children who are nevertheless "born alive."] Either the 63 million people voting for him didn't know about his radical record, which includes abandoning abortion survivors to die, didn't care, or didn't believe it."

Because several "anti-life" ballot initiatives also passed on Tuesday, Stanek said to her World Net Daily audience that "we are fooling ourselves if we think the United States is still a Christian nation," adding: "Its people just elected a barbarian as president."

The notion, pushed hard by Stanek and others, that Obama favored infanticide because he once voted "present" on a number of Illinois state senate bills was one that the Obama campaign pushed back against during the campaign. Obama's "Fight the Smears" website (apparently now offline) said the president-elect had voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were 'born alive,' because such protections were already part of Illinois state law, and because the Stanek-supported bill was, at the time, opposed by the Illinois Medical Society.

Rick Winkel, the Illinois Republican who introduced the bill in the state Senate, even wrote in September that "none of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide," despite his disagreement with them.

Nevertheless, Stanek is not giving up the ghost, calling on churches across America to take up a more explicit fight in the public policy arena of abortion. "It is your responsibility, pastor and church leaders, to teach your people that abortion is abominable, and before that to teach chaste living," she wrote. "And before that, at the risk of making my Protestant friends flip, to teach that the contraceptive/sterilization mentality, which considers children bad, not blessings, is also a component of the sexual demise of our country."

On Wednesday, Sen. Chuck Schumer predicted to several Democratic insiders that Jeff Merkley will unseat incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith in Oregon, multiple sources confirmed. At least one DSCC staffer is also telling prominent Democratic fundraisers that Merkley will prevail, according to an email obtained by the Huffington Post.

With Smith currently leading by 9,000 votes, the predictions might seem like a bold move, or perhaps a way to boost spirits, but Democrats in the state echo that same confidence.

The reason is that Multnomah county, home to liberal bastion Portland, still has approximately 160,000 votes left to be counted. With 49 percent of precincts there reporting on Wednesday, votes were running 2 to 1 in the Democrat's favor. The only frustration for Merkley's campaign is that the urban metropolis is counting ballots at a clip of 6,000 per hour. Meanwhile, rural counties in Oregon, which hold many fewer outstanding votes, are processing votes faster on Wednesday, meaning that Smith may appear to increase his lead for a brief period this evening.

"There's a little confusion for some people as to why statewide totals remain what they are. But we're extremely confident," said Matt Canter on the Merkley campaign. "The ballots are there, in Multnomah and Lane counties."

Merkley leads 57-39 in the 45 percent of Lane precincts that have been counted so far. The Merkley aide said no Republican counties that have yet to count votes are giving Smith a similar advantage. The state's populous, suburban Washington county so far shows a couple-thousand vote lead for the Democratic candidate -- though Smith has been closing that margin today.

"Even if he was to close that gap in Washington county and go up a few hundred votes, what's still outstanding in Multnomah is enough," Canter said.

On Thursday, the Oregonian quoted a respected local pollster standing by his election-night prediction that Merkley would pull out a victory. "I still think Merkley is going to win," Oregon pollster Tim Hibbitts said. "But it's going to be tight, and a lot tighter than I thought it was going to be. We shall see."

Since Barack Obama has signaled that his transition team will move quickly, it shouldn't come as a surprise that advocacy organizations are acting just as fast to register their opinions.

On Wednesday morning, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy contacted the Huffington Post to describe her "mixed feelings" at the prospect of Larry Summers being on a rumored short list of contenders for Treasury secretary. Cautioning that the quickness of the group's decision to drop a hint about its concern over Summers was not a formal declaration of "opposition," Gandy nevertheless fleshed out a broad critique.

"It's very important that whoever is in key positions understands the importance of women to this economy -- and that the impact of wage inequality for women has bearing on the overall economic inequality in our society," she said. "I don't see [this] on the agendas of most of the candidates being suggested. While Larry Summers has talked about income inequality, he doesn't seem to get it that a lot of that is related to the wage gap between men and women."

The renowned economist served at Treasury toward the end of the Clinton administration, and was president of Harvard before a controversy over comments he made about women's aptitude in math and science drove him from that post. So far, no reporting has suggested that Obama has asked Summers about his willingness to serve at Treasury. Summers himself refused to speculate on the possibility at a conference last month.

NOW's president said the group was not speaking out about Summers solely because of the Harvard incident. "He certainly is considered to have enormous intellectual capacity on the subject [of the economy]. Though his past support for derivatives that seem to have plunged us into this [crisis] makes him perhaps not the best choice to get us out of that."

But on the topic of the old Harvard controversy, Gandy added: "I'm torn on the subject. Part of me thinks his opinions on women's capacities for math and science don't have relevancy to financial markets. On the other hand, economics is a very math-heavy field. Does that mean he'd be less likely to include women in his own circle of advisers? I don't know the answer to that question; I don't know him. But I do wonder whether if his comments about women's lack of aptitude for math and science had instead been a comment or an opinion about African Americans having less capacity for math and science, would he be on anybody's short-list. That's a fair question to ask."

Gandy noted some displeasure at not hearing prominent female economists like Laura D'Andrea Tyson or Sheila Bair mentioned for the job. "We're gonna be forwarding some names to the Obama transition team," she said. "It's important that in this new administration women's voices are heard and heeded."

The feminist group's president also joked that there was an internal discussion at NOW on Wednesday morning, regarding whether or not to send a signal about their Cabinet preferences so soon after Obama's election. "There is some hesitation. We asked, is this really what we want to do? This guy just got elected. But all signs are that he's going to move very very quickly to fill key posts," she said.