Newsweek: GOP Senate Candidate's Racy Pics Don't Matter─Because He's a Dude

That's what Joe was saying. Read More......

Book's highly critical account of the Clintons, and why I think they're not fighting back

I disagree with Ben on this one. I don't think the Clinton machine isn't fighting back against the book's allegations simply because so much of the Clinton machine helped source the book. I think, rather, that Hillary is being a good Secretary of State.

I was thinking about this the other day, before I'd heard about the allegations in the book. How often do we hear from Secretary Clinton? Not a heck of a lot. She has one of the most high profile jobs in the administration, and we hear nary a peep from her. I think she's laying low so as not to steal the limelight from the President. Now, whether that's her choice, or whether the White House has asked her to keep a low profile, is anyone's guess. But I think the lack of response from Team Clinton on this book is because she doesn't want to be a distraction for the President. And if that's the case, she deserves credit. Read More......

Gibbs: Obama isn't going to campaign for Coakley this week, despite the fact that we may lose our 60th vote in the Senate

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said today that the President will not be campaigning for Martha Coakley in Massachusetts this week because "it's not on his schedule." Joe wrote this morning about how vitally important it is that Democrats hold on to Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. A lot of people are worried about whether Coakley will win. And as Joe notes, yesterday's PPP poll has Coakley down by 1 - and they've been, to quote Joe, "scarily accurate." That's why Joe wrote about how important it is for the President to go to Massachusetts and help Coakley keep our 60th seat in the Senate.

This is a race the Democrats should not lose, and can not afford to lose. For the next eight days, the national Democratic party, led by Barack Obama, needs to do everything possible to make sure Coakley wins. Obama needs to rally Democrats to make sure they vote. If that means going to Boston and Springfield, then that's what he needs to do. And, the Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America better be in full campaign mode, too, sending regular email blasts to everyone in Massachusetts, and the surrounding states (they can still volunteer, even if they can't vote). And at least one of those email blasts has to come from the President himself.

Now, I'm sure some in the White House won't want to touch this race. After all, they'll argue, what if Obama helps Coakley and she loses? Then the media will say that Obama himself lost. News flash: If we lose Ted Kennedy's seat in liberal Massachusetts to a conservative Republican, and thus lose our quasi- 60 vote majority in the Senate, and thus endanger health care reform and the entire Democratic agenda, then you can bet the media, and the public, is going to take this as a sign that Obama lost, regardless of whether he helps or not. Isn't it better to do all he can to avoid this outcome?

The President did send an email today, and that's good. But Gibbs said today that the President isn't going to fly up there to help. And that's that. It's difficult to understand what is more important than watching the Democrats' entire agenda disappear next week when we lose our 60th vote in the Senate.

QUESTION: On politics, there are indications that Massachusetts Senate race is tightening up. The DNC sent a top staffer there today. Does the president have any intention of going up to Massachusetts to campaign on behalf of Martha Coakley?

GIBBS: The president doesn't have any travel plans to campaign in Massachusetts.

QUESTION: Robert, why isn't the president going to campaign for Martha Coakley? It's a tight race, very important to (inaudible) essentially?

GIBBS: It's not on our schedule to go to next week.

QUESTION: And why is it not on the schedule?

GIBBS: It's just not on the schedule.

QUESTION: Has he been asked by the Coakley campaign to come?

GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: Has he been asked to stay away?

GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Is he -- is he concerned -- is there concern that his popularity -- I mean, it just doesn't make any sense that he wouldn't go up there. Is he concerned that his popularity ratings...

GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: ... if he goes up there, that he might hurt her campaign?

GIBBS: No. No. No.

QUESTION: So just -- just not on the schedule. It seems the scheduler actually who has decided not to send him.

GIBBS: All I can say was, you didn't ask me that. We just -- it's not on the schedule as a trip the president's going to make.

Read More......

Cuomo asks banks for bonus details

This could get very interesting. The public is going to explode when the bumper crop of bonuses hit the street in the coming days. It's not possible to have such high unemployment and then have outrageous numbers like we're about to see. Wall Street knows that they can get away with it though. Even worse, Washington has helped pave the way, with no strings attached.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is asking the nation's eight biggest banks to reveal how much they plan to pay out in employee bonuses for 2009.

Cuomo told reporters Monday that he also wants to know how the size of the banks' bonus pool would have been affected if the banks hadn't received a taxpayer rescue at the height of the financial crisis in late 2008.

Read More......

In defense of double standards

A really excellent analysis from Ambinder:

[I]t is certainly true that the Republican Party's recent history on race almost requires any reasonable observer to treat a racially insensitive comment by a Republican differently than a racially insensitive comment by a Democrat. And that's before we even judge the content and context of said comments, which, in the case of Reid and Lott, were quite different.

That is, the right answer to the assertion: "What would have happened if a Republican said the same time today? He would have been treated differently?" is to say, "Well, probably, yes, and that in and of itself isn't unfair. It's up to you to tell me why Republicans and Democrats ought to be treated differently, when they are different parties with different histories and different trajectories on racial questions." To reach back at this point and pull out Trent Lott gets us into the false analogy rathole...

Maybe Harry Reid's comments are a resignable offense. Maybe they're beyond the pale. (I tend to think not: Reid was referring his excitement about a black presidential candidate; Lott was referring to his warm memories about a segregation's agenda). But a responsible argument for such a consequence can only begin with an analogy -- and not end with a false one.

At its most simple, it's why I can call myself a fag but you can't. Or why blacks can use the n-word but whites can't. It's not because of a double standard, it's because you are trying to compare apples and oranges, gays and straights, blacks and whites, as if they're the same thing. And they're not. And then, as Ambinder notes, there's context. Were you using the word to attack or to praise? And was the "praise" itself racist (a la Jimmy the Greek), or was it simply a poor word to explain something that is true and not racist at all?

Context matters. Read More......

Union leader fears Dems are inviting a repeat of disastrous 1994 elections

From Sam Stein at Huff Post:

"It could well be" a recipe for disaster in 2010, Trumka told a group of reporters. "I just came back from southern California. I was in five or six places out there... it is amazing the number of people that come up to you unsolicited and say, 'I'm really worried about this health care bill.'"

Asked if he thought union and non-union workers will stay at home if health care reform (as outlined by the Senate) is passed into law, Trumka replied: "That could very well happen. A bad bill could have that effect... an [election] where people sit home. It could suppress votes... Look at what happened in '94."

Read More......

Sarah Palin to become FOX News contributor

She's telegenic, but she's also a dimwit. If she has everything written out for her in advance, she'll be fine. If she actually has to think for herself, it should make for some good theater.

And let me just say, thank God FOX is finally hiring some conservatives to balance out their programming. Read More......

A tale of two Jindals

In the post below, a reader thought that the conservatives had altered Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's portrait to make him look more white. So I did a little research. And in fact, that is Bobby Jindal's official portrait - the conservatives at the conference did not "whiten" it. Having said that, I'm having an awfully hard time finding any other photos of Jindal in which he's as light-skinned as he is in his official portrait. I can't find any. And I went through 20 pages of Google photos, or 360 photos.

Here is Bobby Jindal's official portrait:


Here is Bobby Jindal in a bunch other photos taken of him - the center photo is from his official portrait, the rest I grabbed off of Google, without paying attention to lighter and darker, just grabbed what was there.



Here are a few pages of Google photos so you can check for yourself:



Read More......

African-American speakers overrun conservative conference

Oh the humanity. (H/t Yglesias)

I am, however, liking the crescent and quasi-rainbow flag in their logo.

Read More......

President Obama needs to ensure we win Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts next week, or health care reform, and our entire agenda, is in serious trouble

Please donate via ActBlue to Martha Coakley's campaign.

The special election to replace Ted Kennedy takes place on January 19th. There are only eight days left. And Democrats are getting nervous. And they should be. From today's Washington Post:

Massachusetts isn't the likeliest backdrop for Republicans to begin their long climb back to a Senate majority. Democrats control both of the state's U.S. Senate seats, the governorship, all 10 House seats and wide majorities in the state legislature.

And yet, the buzz in political circles over the past week is that state Sen. Scott Brown is rapidly making up ground on state Attorney General Martha Coakley in the Jan. 19 special election to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy -- movement that has Democrats scrambling to ensure they keep what should be a sure thing in their column.

Special elections are always tough. There's usually low voter turnout, so whichever side is motivated wins. And, the Republicans are motivated.

The GOP candidate, Scott Brown, would fit right in with the likes of Jim DeMint, David Vitter, Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell. He's not a moderate. He trashed gay couples who want children, saying it was "not normal" and got into a public fight with a bunch of teenagers over gay marriage.

Because special elections are low turnout -- and this one is happening in the middle of January, the Democrats need to do everything possible to increase Democratic turnout. Cillizza reports that Bill Clinton will be heading to Massachusetts this week. But what about President Obama?

According to the Public Policy Polling poll (they're pollsters we actually trust), Obama's approval rating in Massachusetts is 44% (43% disapproval). That's quite stunning in a state that Obama won by a margin of 62% to 36%. It means Democratic voters are not motivated, and certainly not as motivated as they were a year ago. (We're witnessing, first hand, what happens when Democrats tick off their base.)

PPP's Tom Jensen writes that Coakley can still win:

There are a lot more potential Coakley voters than Brown ones out there in Massachusetts, but she needs to get them more energized. For instance young voters were a crucial part of the Obama coalition but they're only accounting for 11% of likely voters right now and among those planning to turn out she has just a three point advantage.

In other words, in order for Coakley to win, we need Obama voters to be motivated to get out and vote. And there's only one man who can do that: Barack Obama. But Obama has yet to visit Massachusetts to stump for Coakley. This week he needs to do just that.

This is a race the Democrats should not lose, and can not afford to lose. For the next eight days, the national Democratic party, led by Barack Obama, needs to do everything possible to make sure Coakley wins. Obama needs to rally Democrats to make sure they vote. If that means going to Boston and Springfield, then that's what he needs to do. And, the Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America better be in full campaign mode, too, sending regular email blasts to everyone in Massachusetts, and the surrounding states (they can still volunteer, even if they can't vote). And at least one of those email blasts has to come from the President himself.

Now, I'm sure some in the White House won't want to touch this race. After all, they'll argue, what if Obama helps Coakley and she loses? Then the media will say that Obama himself lost. News flash: If we lose Ted Kennedy's seat in liberal Massachusetts to a conservative Republican, and thus lose our quasi- 60 vote majority in the Senate, and thus endanger health care reform and the entire Democratic agenda, then you can bet the media, and the public, is going to take this as a sign that Obama lost, regardless of whether he helps or not. Isn't it better to do all he can to avoid this outcome?

Now a word on health care reform. If we lose our 60-vote majority in the Senate, then we also lose one vote for health care reform. We still have one more Senate vote on health care reform, on the conference report, in a few weeks. If Coakley loses, we'll only have 59 votes and won't be able to block a GOP filibuster. So we'll have one of two choices. Either we cave to a Republican and gut the bill even further, or the House has to pass the Senate bill, verbatim (i.e., no improvements), in order to avoid another Senate vote. (If the conference committee adopts the Senate bill, with no changes, then the Senate wouldn't have to vote again.) So much for all those promises to improve the bill in conference.

It's been bad enough watching the Democrats cave on issue after issue, and watching the White House not quite give its all for its own agenda, even with a 60 vote majority in the Senate. Just imagine how bad they're all going to be if we only have 59 votes. They're going to use the loss of Kennedy's seat as a justification for breaking promise after promise. We need to win this election next week, and the White House needs to get involved and lead.

Please donate via ActBlue to Martha Coakley's campaign. Read More......

The real lesson from Europe: 'social justice and progress can go hand in hand'

Paul Krugman deconstructs the economic arguments against Europe today. These pervasive anti-Europe views, as Krugman notes, are made by "many Democrats as well as essentially all Republicans." Krugman doesn't sugar coat the European economy. But, the views of many American politicians are just not accurate:

So if there were anything to the economic assumptions that dominate U.S. public discussion — above all, the belief that even modestly higher taxes on the rich and benefits for the less well off would drastically undermine incentives to work, invest and innovate — Europe would be the stagnant, decaying economy of legend. But it isn’t.

Europe is often held up as a cautionary tale, a demonstration that if you try to make the economy less brutal, to take better care of your fellow citizens when they’re down on their luck, you end up killing economic progress. But what European experience actually demonstrates is the opposite: social justice and progress can go hand in hand.

It probably helps to have politicians who support social justice. Read More......

Sarah Palin thinks it was 'God's plan' to pick her as V.P.

Okay. At least now we know who is really responsible for Sarah Palin -- in her mind anyway. It wasn't John McCain:

In an interview with the CBS news magazine "60 Minutes," Steve Schmidt described Palin as "very calm -- nonplussed" after McCain met with her at his Arizona ranch just before putting her on the Republican ticket. McCain had planned to name Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) as his choice until word leaked, sparking what Schmidt called political blowback over selecting the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee.

Schmidt, McCain's chief campaign adviser, said he asked Palin about her serenity in the face of becoming "one of the most famous people in the world." He quoted her as saying, "It's God's plan." Palin has not ruled out a run for the presidency.

So does this mean God didn't want Lieberman on the GOP ticket? It gets confusing with these sanctimonious, theocratic types. Read More......

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

The President has a meeting with labor leaders this afternoon. Labor is only one of the key constituencies for the Democratic party. But, somehow, union members are getting screwed in the health care bill by the tax on more expensive policies. Unions negotiate for better benefits by giving up on higher wages. I'm sure the President will have a very good explanation. And, I have no doubt that Obama will explain how he's going to lead the charge to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the federal court case challenging the constitutionality of California's Prop. 8, starts today in San Francisco. Our side's legal team is led by David Boies and Ted Olson. The trial won't be broadcast live, but, in a first for a federal case, video of the proceedings will be posted on YouTube at the end of the day. We'll be following the coverage throughout the trial.

This is also the last full week of the campaign to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts. Considering Massachusetts is a very blue state, it's surprisingly not a done deal. GOPer Scott Brown is giving Democrat Martha Coakley a strong challenge. I imagine we'll see Obama heading to the Bay State this week to help get-out-the-vote. Democrats need to vote next Tuesday, because Republicans will.

Busy week ahead...Let's get threading... Read More......

China's property bubble

Where have we seen this? Lax lending standards, get-rich-quick house selling, cheap credit, prices doubling within a few years and a firm belief that the good times will never end. The "experts" are confirming that it will last for years and are citing pent up demand for housing, which sounds reasonable enough. Sloppy lending on a large scale tends not to work out very well though, so that may complicate the "everything is fine" theory. Whether the export market will continue to sustain the high numbers is also in question and that too has led to the delicate balance that is working, for now.

For investors, many of the usual bubble warning signs are flashing. Fueled by low interest rates, prices in Shanghai and Beijing doubled in less than four years, then doubled again. Most Chinese home buyers expect that today's high prices will climb even higher tomorrow, so they are stretching to pay prices at the edge of their means or beyond. Brokers say it is common for buyers to falsely inflate income statements for bank loans.

Some economists and bankers fear that they have read this script before. In Japan at the end of the 1980s and in the United States in 2008, residential real estate bubbles ended in big crashes, battered banks and slow recoveries. With China acting as a key engine of global growth, a bursting of the Chinese real estate bubble could be a pop heard round the world.

Read More......

Is privacy no longer a social norm?

Sounds hard to believe but it also makes me wonder how much longer this phase will last. Is privacy really irrelevant now?

The rise of social networking online means that people no longer have an expectation of privacy, according to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

Talking at the Crunchie awards in San Francisco this weekend, the 25-year-old dotcom chief executive of the world's most popular social network said that privacy was no longer a "social norm".

"People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people," he said. "That social norm is just something that has evolved over time."

Read More......