SENATORS WHO MOVE TO THE CABINET.... Much has been made of the fact that sitting senators have very rarely won the presidency. Barack Obama is the first since JFK 48 years ago, and only the third in American history, following Kennedy and Warren Harding.

But what about senators becoming cabinet secretaries? Ben Smith had an interesting item this afternoon.

Along with getting emoluments out of the way, Lloyd Bentsen offers a useful guide on another timely question: When will Hillary resign?

Her staff isn't saying, but Bentsen is the most recent sitting senator to join the cabinet, and a likely guide. The Senate Finance committee met and voted the nomination out on January 12. Clinton was sworn in on January 20, and the Senate briefly convened hours later to hear Bentsen's nomination, along with those of Les Aspin and Warren Christopher.

Only then did Bentsen resign.

Which means nearly two more months of obsessing about David Paterson.

Sure, there's going to be ample speculation about who'll fill Clinton's Senate seat. But let's not brush past that first point -- we haven't had any sitting senators move to the cabinet since Lloyd Bentsen? That was 15 years ago, meaning Clinton didn't call on any sitting senators to fill cabinet vacancies after his first year in office, and George W. Bush didn't call on any at any point during his two terms.

I wonder why this is. Part of it, I suspect, is that being a U.S. Senator is a great gig, the job security is generally pretty good, and one would ordinarily be reluctant to give it up for a cabinet post that only lasts a few years.

But I'm still surprised we've seen zero senators move to the cabinet over the last 15 years. There are some pretty talented officials in the chamber; why overlook them?

MCCAFFREY.... David Barstow had a devastating New York Times piece back in April, documenting the practice of retired U.S. generals appearing on the major cable networks as "independent" media analysts, while they were simultaneously working for defense contractors, and repeating talking points from the Pentagon. The painted picture was a train wreck of conflicts of interest and journalistic ethical malpractice.

Today, Barstow has yet another blockbuster, directing his focus to one of the more prominent retired generals: Barry R. McCaffrey, a retired four-star Army general, military analyst for NBC News, and highly-paid consultant to defense contractors.

It's really worth reading the whole piece, but Spencer Ackerman's take was spot-on.

If this mammoth New York Times piece is wrong, Barry McCaffrey really ought to sue, because if it isn't, he has no reputation for integrity left. [...]

[T]he scope of McCaffrey's hustle is really breathtaking. Barstow demonstrates that many, if not most, of the pronouncements he made on TV about the wars benefited one or another defense contractor who employed him. That's the way the scheme worked: Company hires retired general to use his connections to its benefit. Retired general accepts special grants of access from the office of the secretary of defense that benefit both his TV career and his consulting career. Retired general proclaims on TV things that benefit both the secretary and the company -- or, when circumstances necessitate, the company at the expense of the secretary. TV viewer, looking for informed analysis of confusing wars, is unaware of any of this. Welcome to the new military-media-industrial complex.

It's that bad. As Barstow explained, "On NBC and in other public forums, General McCaffrey has consistently advocated wartime policies and spending priorities that are in line with his corporate interests. But those interests are not described to NBC's viewers. He is held out as a dispassionate expert, not someone who helps companies win contracts related to the wars he discusses on television."

After Barstow's report in April, I largely expected the networks to reevaluate their relationships with these "independent" media analysts. That, apparently, hasn't happened, and NBC News, in particular, seems unconcerned about the obvious conflicts of interest, the lack of disclosure, and the textbook ethical lapses.

The network's viewers deserve an explanation.

REPUBLICANS' 'MCCARTHY GENE'.... The story of Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign serving as the catalyst of the modern conservative movement, which reshaped the Republican Party, is well known. But Neal Gabler presents an interesting idea today, arguing that the real father of modern conservatism is Sen. Joe McCarthy. Indeed, as far as Gabler is concerned, "the McCarthy gene" runs deep in the GOP's DNA, "and because it is genetic, it isn't likely to be expunged any time soon."

McCarthy, Wisconsin's junior senator, was the man who first energized conservatism and made it a force to reckon with. When he burst on the national scene in 1950 waving his list of alleged communists who had supposedly infiltrated Harry Truman's State Department, conservatism was as bland, temperate and feckless as its primary congressional proponent, Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, known fondly as "Mister Conservative." [...]

McCarthy was another thing entirely. What he lacked in ideology -- and he was no ideologue at all -- he made up for in aggression. Establishment Republicans, even conservatives, were disdainful of his tactics, but when those same conservatives saw the support he elicited from the grass-roots and the press attention he got, many of them were impressed. Taft, no slouch himself when it came to Red-baiting, decided to encourage McCarthy, secretly, sealing a Faustian bargain that would change conservatism and the Republican Party. Henceforth, conservatism would be as much about electoral slash-and-burn as it would be about a policy agenda.

For the polite conservatives, McCarthy was useful. That's because he wasn't only attacking alleged communists and the Democrats whom he accused of shielding them. He was also attacking the entire centrist American establishment, the Eastern intellectuals and the power class, many of whom were Republicans themselves, albeit moderate ones.... McCarthyism is usually considered a virulent form of Red-baiting and character assassination. But it is much more than that. As historian Richard Hofstadter described it in his famous essay, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," McCarthyism is a way to build support by playing on the anxieties of Americans, actively convincing them of danger and conspiracy even where these don't exist.

It does sound pretty familiar, doesn't it?

Gabler's point seems to be a stylistic one, not an ideological one. Goldwater championed a libertarian, anti-government conservatism. McCarthy championed a political blood-lust, premised on scapegoats, cultural resentment, and fear.

In this sense, while the traditional model shows a line from Goldwater to Reagan to Bush, Gabler points to a different line -- McCarthy to Nixon to Bush to Palin. Indeed, if Karl Rove has a godfather, in this model, it's Joe McCarthy.

Gabler concludes, "There may be assorted intellectuals and ideologues in the party, maybe even a few centrists, but there is no longer an intellectual or even ideological wing. The party belongs to McCarthy and his heirs -- Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Palin. It's in the genes."

It's a good piece and a compelling case. Take a look.

JINDAL'S FUTURE.... The Washington Post has an interesting item today on Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's (R) recent swing through Iowa, apparently the first step towards the 37-year-old governor's 2012 presidential campaign. As has been apparent for quite a while, the GOP's far-right base has exceedingly high hopes for Jindal, and consider him "the party's own version of Obama."

Like the president-elect, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is young (37), accomplished (a Rhodes scholar) and, as the son of Indian immigrants, someone familiar with breaking racial and cultural barriers. He came to Iowa to deliver a pair of speeches, and his mere presence ignited talk that the 2012 presidential campaign has begun here, if coyly. Already, a fierce fight is looming between him and other Republicans -- former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who arrived in Iowa a couple of days before him, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is said to be coming at some point -- for the hearts of social conservatives. [...]

No less an aspiring kingmaker than Steve Schmidt, the chief strategist of McCain's failed presidential bid, sees Jindal as the Republican Party's destiny. "The question is not whether he'll be president, but when he'll be president, because he will be elected someday." The anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist believes, too, that Jindal is a certainty to occupy the White House, and conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh has described him as "the next Ronald Reagan."

Jindal is, above all else, a political meteor, sharing Obama's precocious skills for reaching the firmament in a hurry. It was just four years ago, after losing a gubernatorial election, that he won election to Congress, and only this year that he became Louisiana's governor, the first nonwhite to hold the office since Reconstruction. And now, 10 months into his first term, the talk of a presidential bid is getting louder among his boosters.

Earlier this year, Jindal was approached by the McCain campaign about V.P. vetting, but the governor reportedly declined. Chris Cillizza recently reported, "[T]here was also real trepidation within his political inner circle that Jindal might wind up as the pick -- McCain was attracted to his comprehensive health-care knowledge -- and be caught up in what they believed to be a less-than-stellar campaign that could pin a loss on Jindal without much ability to change or control the direction of the contest."

It's obviously way too early to start seriously sizing up future presidential candidates, especially governors. Yglesias had a good item on this a couple of weeks ago: "A governor presiding over an economic boom can cut taxes while increasing spending, and thus develop a reputation as a popular can-do pragmatist. Think of George W. Bush, George Voinovich, Christie Todd Whitman, and other classics of the 1990s.... [R]ight now [Jindal's] looking at the need to cut $1 billion in spending. Not his fault (though the decision to make up the budget shortfall with a mix of 100% service cuts and 0% tax cuts reflects the intellectually and morally bankrupt nature of contemporary conservatism) any more than the 'free money for everyone' governors of the nineties were really geniuses, but it's going to make it difficult for him to rack up the sort of Record Of Accomplishments that you're usually looking for in a presidential candidate."

OBAMA AND THE BRASS.... During the last two Democratic administrations, there was obvious tension between the presidents and the military leaders in the Pentagon. As Mark Kleiman noted, "Under Carter and Clinton, not only the military but the civilian bureaucracies in the Pentagon were massively insubordinate, doing their level best to frustrate the purposes of those two Presidents, on topics ranging from weapons systems to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It was a much better career move for a colonel bucking for his first star or a lieutenant general bucking for his fourth to support the culture of the Building rather than the purposes of the Commander in Chief."

Barack Obama is intent on having a stronger, more cooperative relationship with the brass. By all indications, he's off to a good start.

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.

There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that tension is unavoidable. Military leaders are, the theory goes, bound to be skeptical about a young president who didn't serve in the military, and who has articulated a withdrawal policy many in the Pentagon are skeptical of.

But there are at least two key angles to consider here. First, during the ongoing transition, Obama seems to be reassuring military leaders about his plans, and signaling to the brass, through his personnel decisions, that "he will do nothing rash and will seek their advice, even while making clear that he may not always take it."

Second, and just as importantly, Obama has an opportunity, which he plans to fully take advantage of, to make some changes that military leaders and Pentagon officials have wanted for years, but which Bush failed to even consider. Indeed, for all of the perceived conservatism of the military, Obama's vision and agenda for the Pentagon is far more in line with officers' beliefs than the current president's.

As Karen DeYoung explained, there's an expectation among military leaders that there will be "greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities," including objectives in Afghanistan, diplomacy with Iran, and increased budget discipline.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."

PARTISAN 'SINS'.... A couple of weeks ago, we learned about the Rev. Jay Scott Newman, a South Carolina Roman Catholic priest who announced that his parishioners who voted for Barack Obama are not eligible for Communion. He was rebuked by the Diocese, who said Newman's statements did not "adequately reflect the Catholic Church's teachings."

A priest in California apparently didn't get the message.

Parishioners of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto have been told they should consider going to confession if they voted for Barack Obama, because of the president-elect's position condoning abortion.

"If you are one of the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate, you were clear on his position and you knew the gravity of the question, I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don't risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously," the Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph's, wrote in a letter dated Nov. 21. [...]

Illo, in an interview Wednesday, explained his reasoning. "In Catholic teaching, you have to go to confession when you have committed a mortal sin," he said. "Now, what is a mortal sin? It's somewhat complex. No one can say, 'You committed a mortal sin.' I can only say, 'It's a grave matter.' It's my job to look after my parishioners.

The Rev. Stephen Blaire, a bishop in Illo's Diocese disagreed, saying Catholic parishioners should not feel compelled to tell their priest how they voted, and that voting for Obama did not necessitate a confession. "Our position on pro-life is very important, but there are other issues," Blaire said. "No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for. I'm sure that most Catholics who voted were voting on economic issues. There were probably many priests, and I suspect many bishops, who voted for Obama."

Of course there were. To reiterate a point from a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement not too long ago telling Catholics that they can't vote "for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position." That left voters plenty of wiggle room -- a Catholic voter could back a pro-choice candidate and simply say that it wasn't his or her "intent" to support the candidate's position on abortion. Problem solved.

And yet, here we have another priest going considerably further, saying intent is irrelevant, and he wants to punish those who voted for the "wrong" candidate, regardless of their motivation.

Given that a majority of Catholic voters backed Obama on Election Day, one wonders why a church leader would take such an extreme position.

BC HELPS CLEAR THE WAY FOR HRC.... The likely announcement about Hillary Clinton being named the next Secretary of State has reportedly been on track for a while, and it appears one of the final hurdles -- the disclosure of her husband's international fundraising -- has been resolved.

Former President Bill Clinton has agreed to disclose publicly the names of more than 200,000 donors to his foundation as part of an accord with President-elect Barack Obama that clears the way for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to become secretary of state, Democrats close to both sides said on Saturday.

Mr. Clinton has kept his contributor list secret, as permitted under federal law, but he decided to publish it to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest with Mrs. Clinton's duties as the nation's top diplomat, said the Democrats, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the agreement with Mr. Obama's team. Mr. Obama plans to announce Mrs. Clinton's nomination on Monday, according to advisers.

The disclosure of contributors is among nine conditions that Mr. Clinton signed off on during discussions with representatives of Mr. Obama; all go beyond the requirements of law. Among other issues, he agreed to incorporate his Clinton Global Initiative separately from his foundation so that he has less direct involvement. The initiative, which promotes efforts to fight disease, poverty and climate change, would no longer hold annual meetings outside of the United States or accept new contributions from foreign governments.

Mr. Clinton also agreed to submit his future personal speeches and business activities for review by State Department ethics officials and, if necessary, by the White House counsel's office.

The former president's web of business and charitable activities raised questions about how he could continue to travel the world soliciting multimillion-dollar contributions for his foundation and collecting six-figure speaking fees for himself from foreign organizations and individuals while his wife conducted American foreign policy.

Chris Cillizza added, "With that potentially sticky-wicket now a non-issue, the nomination of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State appears to be on a glide path."

Indeed, the speculation will likely end as early as tomorrow, when Obama introduces Clinton as his nominee.

There was a report this morning that Hillary Clinton had been offered the chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committee, but Ben Smith noted that Clinton was actually offered a seat on the committee, not its chairmanship.

As for Bill Clinton's fundraising disclosures, a source familiar with the former president's work said the list "may include some embarrassing names, but nothing dramatic enough to scuttle his wife's chances to be Secretary of State. That the nomination is on track to go forward suggests that Obama sees no overly embarrassing revelations in the list either."

SANFORD WANTS A SMALLER GOP.... The latest "what do we do now?" piece for the Republican Party comes from South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R), who outlines his approach in a piece for the Politico today.

There's some predictable prescriptions -- Republicans should, apparently, try sticking to their principles -- but this one jumped out at me.

There needs to be a high standard for our franchisees. In other words, I believe Republicans and conservatives must agree on our core principles. St. Augustine called for 'unity in the essentials, diversity in the nonessentials, and charity in all things,' and while I believe there should always be a big GOP tent, there must also be a shared agreement on the essentials — including expanding liberty, encouraging entrepreneurship and limiting the reach of government in people's everyday lives.

In this regard, the tent cannot be so big as to include political franchisees who don't act on the core tenets of conservatism -- and as a consequence harm the brand and undermine others' work on it.

Now, I think I know what Sanford means here, and his point is not, on its face, ridiculous. Political parties have to stand for at least some core tenets, and it makes sense for parties to worry about diluting a party brand to the point that the label becomes meaningless.

There is, however, a context that Sanford seems oblivious to. Right now, fewer Americans identify with the Republican Party than at any point in years. The party has lost the White House; it's a minority in both chambers in Congress by wide margins; and it's a minority among the nation's governorships. Voters say they agree with the Democratic Party on just about every issue under the sun.

Sanford considers this landscape and suggests what Republicans really need to do is make the party even smaller.

If, in context, that means purging, say, convicted felons from the party ranks, it would clearly be sensible. But I don't think that's what Sanford means. If I understand his piece correctly, Sanford wants to see a Republican Party that shed itself of factions that fall short of the "core tenets of conservatism" -- as defined, presumably, by Mark Sanford -- so as to let voters know exactly what they'd get by way of the party label. What the GOP needs now, in other words, is fewer people.

If you say so, gov.

OVERRATED LOYALTY.... George W. Bush's fascination with "loyalty" is practically legendary. The president considers it the single most important trait a person in public service can have, far exceeding competence and qualification. Bush, for example, picked Dick Cheney because he knew he'd be loyal (Cheney had no presidential ambitions of his own). Loyalty led to high-ranking posts for all kinds of people who had no business taking on their responsibilities -- Alberto Gonzales, I'm looking in your direction -- but who were rewarded for their personal devotion and fidelity to the man in the Oval Office.

Slate's Jacob Weisberg had a good piece today explaining that loyalty is not only wildly overrated in presidential politics, but that truly successful presidents know that an obsession with loyalty is a waste of time and energy.

...I doubt Obama will have much trouble with disloyalty in his administration, from Clinton or anyone else, for the same reason it wasn't a problem in his campaign: He doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about it.

Loyalty is a wonderful human quality and a necessary political one. No president would think of moving into the White House without known and trusted advisers such as David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett. At the same time, the recurrent presidential obsession with forms of disloyalty, including leaks, disobedience, and private agendas, is a marker for executive failure. Those presidents who fixated on personal allegiance, such as Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush, tended to perform far worse in office than those, such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, who could tolerate strong, independent actors on their teams.

The demand for absolute loyalty is a relic from the age of patronage, when political appointments were tied to the delivery of votes for a sponsor. A modern media politician does not depend on this kind of machine for his existence and has political control over only a thin sliver of top-level government jobs. The vast majority of public employees is protected by the Civil Service and can't be vetted for loyalty. As the complexity of the government has increased, so, too, has the importance of expertise and experience.

This is part of what has made George W. Bush's loyalty obsession such a throwback. Bush's first job in politics was as an "enforcer" for a father he thought was too nice to discipline traitors and freelancers. His own fixation on loyalty was born from the experience of watching top aides to his dad such as James Baker and Richard Darman put their own careers and images first. When his turn came, the younger Bush made personal loyalty a threshold test -- and even seemed to regard private, internal challenge to his ill-considered preferences as an indication of untrustworthiness.

This is an interesting way to look at it. The conventional wisdom has long suggested that Bush has shielded himself from dissent and competing ideas due to a lack of intellectual curiosity and mental acuity. But this underestimates the significance of loyalty in shaping Bush's worldview.

Newsweek had a report a few years ago that noted, "It's a standing joke among the president's top aides: who gets to deliver the bad news? Warm and hearty in public, Bush can be cold and snappish in private, and aides sometimes cringe before the displeasure of the president of the United States... Bush can be petulant about dissent; he equates disagreement with disloyalty." (emphasis added)

If one "equates disagreement with disloyalty," he/she necessarily creates an insular bubble where no one is allowed to stray from the party line, and everyone is expected to agree wholeheartedly with the president,regardless of merit. In this sense, Bush's obsession with loyalty not only helps explain why incompetent, partisan hacks were promoted to critical government posts, it also helps highlight why never paid attention to those whose opinions he should have taken seriously.

It's reassuring, then, that Obama expects to earn loyalty, not demand it.

KRISTOL WANTS REWARDS FOR TORTURERS.... Bill Kristol devotes his new Weekly Standard column to warning Republicans to expect to stay the minority party for a while. As he sees it, the GOP, if history is any guide, won't have a legitimate shot at reclaiming the congressional majority until, at the earliest, 2012, and probably won't be able to reclaim the White House until 2016.

With that in mind, Kristol ponders what Bush might do with his remaining weeks in office to help Republicans "get the credit they deserve for successes in Iraq and the broader war on terror." As part of his list, the conservative pundit wants to see some pardons.

...Bush should consider pardoning -- and should at least be vociferously praising -- everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution.

But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.

I can understand why Kristol might be worried about this. As we discussed last week, Newsweek reported that Obama is considering a 9/11 Commission-style investigation of the administration's crimes torture interrogation practices.

But there are, not surprisingly, a few things wrong with Kristol's request. First, there's Kristol's frightening belief that those who commit acts of torture deserve rewards. It's just, on its face, twisted.

Second, there's the fact that the Bush White House "isn't inclined to grant sweeping pardons for former administration officials involved in harsh interrogations and detentions of terror suspects." Why? Because a) the torture policies are, as far as the president's team is concerned, legal; and b) pardons for those involved might lead some to think the policies weren't legal.

And third, as Faiz Shakir noted, the idea of the Medal of Freedom going to U.S. torturers would be offensive, but it would also be consistent with Bush's use of the honor: "In the Bush era, the Medal of Freedom has come to absurdly represent a reward for those who carried out policy failures at the urging of the Bush administration. By this standard, the implementers of torture and wiretapping certainly qualify for such a medal."

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... For readers who haven't been around the past couple of weekends, I have brought back "This Week in God" as a regular Saturday feature. The weekly piece highlights some of the news from the world of religion, most notably instances in which faith intersected with politics and/or public policy. TWIG was on hiatus during the height of the election season, but by popular demand, it's back.

First up from the God Machine, he Rev. Ed Young, pastor of the evangelical Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, recently challenged the married couples in his congregation of 20,000 to have sex on a daily basis. As Young sees it, "congregational copulation" brings people closer to God, closer to their spouse, reduces the likelihood of adultery, and sets a loving example for children.

So, how's it going?

It is not always easy to devote time for your spouse, Pastor Young admitted. Just three days into the sex challenge he said he was so tired after getting up before dawn to talk about the importance of having more sex in marriage that he crashed on the bed around 8 p.m. on Tuesday night.

Mrs. Young tried to shake him awake, telling her husband, "Come on, it's the sex challenge." But Mr. Young murmured, "Let's just double up tomorrow," and went back to sleep.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Remember Ted Haggard, the resident of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals? You know, the one caught up in a sordid scandal involving a male prostitute and methamphetamine? He's apparently trying to make a comeback as a a Christian businessman and insurance salesman.

* Pope Benedict XVI apparently isn't big on interfaith dialogue. According to Corriere della Sera, Italy's leading daily newspaper, the pope will argue in his soon-to-be-published book that "an interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the word is not possible." In theological terms, Benedict argues, "a true dialogue is not possible without putting one's faith in parentheses."

* And in Croatia, government officials have curtailed official Christmas and New Year parties due to a lack of funds. Prime Minister Ivo Sanader said the decision was dictated by the need for fiscal prudence. "For that goal we forbid buying of Christmas and New Year's gifts as well as organising of Christmas and New Year's receptions," Sanader said. Here's hoping no one tells O'Reilly about the decision. (thanks to reader V.S. for the tip)

ZAWAHRI STILL DESPERATE.... About two weeks ago, al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri looked quite foolish attacking Barack Obama, calling the president-elect a "house negro."

Zawahri drew considerable international ridicule for the video, and it appears his p.r. team decided to make matters worse.

Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader appeared in a new video posted Friday calling on Americans to embrace Islam to overcome the financial meltdown, which he said was a consequence of the Sept. 11 attacks and militant strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan. [...]

Appearing in a white turban and robe, Zawahri discussed the roots of the U.S. economic crisis. He said it was a repercussion of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, and that the crisis would continue "as long as the foolish American policy of wading in Muslim blood continues."

"The American economy was afflicted by a downturn and loss of investor confidence in the market following the events of Sept. 11," he said.... Zawahri then called on the American people to "embrace Islam to live a life free of greed, exploitation and forbidden wealth."

One wonders if Zawahri realizes how ridiculous he sounds. Either way, it is encouraging to see him becoming increasingly desperate.

THEY'VE GOT THE POWER.... There was a spate of campaign resignations earlier this year related to controversies over intemperate rhetoric. The most unfortunate of these was the departure of Samantha Power, who had served as a top foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama.

I'm delighted to see she will, at a minimum, have a role in the transition.

Samantha Power, the Harvard professor who was forced to resign from Barack Obama's presidential campaign last spring after calling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "a monster," is now advising the president-elect on transition matters relating to the State Department -- which Clinton is slated to head.

Power is listed on Obama's transition Web site as part of the team reviewing national security agencies. Her duties, according to the site, will be to "ensure that senior appointees have the information necessary to complete the confirmation process, lead their departments, and begin implementing signature policy initiatives immediately after they are sworn in."

In short, she is part of a team that is likely to work directly with Clinton, a potentially awkward situation for the two women.

I appreciate that this might appear to be an awkward dynamic, but it's worth remembering that to consider Power's career and accomplishments with only one stray campaign comment in mind is a ridiculous mistake. We're talking about a Pulitzer-prize winning scholar who has spent most of her professional life combating genocide and raising awareness of human rights abuses and global humanitarian issues.

Yes, in March, she said something intemperate. She'd hoped it would be off the record, and when it wasn't, Power apologized immediately and profusely, before resigning a few hours later. But here's the thing to remember: Americans are better off if Power has a role in our government.

The obvious story here is that Power offered a rude comment about Clinton during the heat of the campaign, Clinton is poised become the Secretary of State, and Power will now have a transition role at the State Department. But if I'm not mistaken, this political season is supposed to be about magnanimity and graciousness.

Kevin noted, "If we accept the conventional wisdom that Obama's choice of Clinton as Secretary of State is a generous gesture meant to help unify the party, then there would be few more forthright ways for Clinton to reciprocate than by nominating Power for some kind of meaningful position at Foggy Bottom. It would be a good sign that those hatchets have been well and truly buried."

I couldn't agree more. The nation and the world would be well served by Power's public service. Here's hoping soon-to-be Secretary of State Clinton agrees.

THE REASON FOR THE SEASON.... Good lord. (via Atrios)

A worker died after being trampled and a woman miscarried when hundreds of shoppers smashed through the doors of a Long Island Wal-Mart Friday morning, witnesses said.

The unidentified worker, employed as an overnight stock clerk, tried to hold back the unruly crowds just after the Valley Stream store opened at 5 a.m.

Witnesses said the surging throngs of shoppers knocked the man down. He fell and was stepped on. As he gasped for air, shoppers ran over and around him.

"He was bum-rushed by 200 people," said Jimmy Overby, 43, a co-worker. "They took the doors off the hinges. He was trampled and killed in front of me. They took me down too...I literally had to fight people off my back."

Apparently, while emergency crews worked furiously to save the store clerk's life, shoppers just kept coming, as if the scene was little more than an inconvenient obstacle between them and low-priced merchandise.

Police eventually shut down the store.

NOBODY LIKES O'REILLY.... Journalist Michael Wolff has a new biography on Rupert Murdoch that'll be published soon, and Michael Calderone, who got an advance look at "The Man Who Owns The News," reports that the New Corp. CEO isn't fond of his top-rated blowhard.

"It is not just Murdoch (and everybody else at News Corp.'s highest levels) who absolutely despises Bill O'Reilly, the bullying, mean-spirited, and hugely successful evening commentator," Wolff wrote, "but [Fox News chief executive] Roger Ailes himself who loathes him. Success, however, has cemented everyone to each other."

"The embarrassment can no longer be missed," Wolff wrote, in another section of the book. "He mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it. He barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O'Reilly. And while it is not that he would give Fox up -- because the money is the money; success trumps all -- in the larger sense of who he is, he seems to want to hedge his bets."

Make of that what you will. That Murdoch might find O'Reilly personally offensive, but nevertheless helpful to the network's bottom-line, strikes me as fairly easy to believe, but your mileage may vary.

EXPECT A STOCKED CABINET BY CHRISTMAS.... Shortly after the election, Obama's transition team indicated that we probably wouldn't hear about any cabinet selections until after Thanksgiving. That changed a bit as the economic crisis worsened, and Obama introduced Tim Geithner as the next Secretary of the Treasury.

But what about the rest of the 15-member cabinet? John Podesta, the head of the transition team, told Bloomberg News that the cabinet selections will be "virtually" complete by Christmas. (via Halperin)

Podesta, a former chief of staff in the Clinton White House, also said Obama would complete "virtually the whole Cabinet" by Christmas, and the new president's team will reach beyond the Democratic Party.

There will be "multiple Republicans" in the administration," Podesta said. "You'll see them spread throughout the administration."

Obama, who is further along in making key appointments than any of his recent predecessors were at this point in the transition period, is expected to announce his national security team next week. It will be led by Senator Hillary Clinton, his erstwhile rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, as secretary of state and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Having to wait until Christmas to learn about the cabinet selections may seem like a lengthy delay, but the opposite is true -- we'll know the cabinet members nearly a month before the inauguration, which will be far ahead of the pace set by any recent president.

As for "multiple Republicans," I didn't hear the context of the quote, but it's worth noting that having Republicans in "the administration" is not the same thing as having Republicans in "the cabinet."

If I had to guess, I'd keep an eye on Chuck Hagel, Jim Leach, and Colin Powell as the leading Republican possibilities, who Obama would likely to want to have on his team in some capacity.

GATES' PENTAGON.... Following up on an item from Wednesday, I've been reading a bit about the various perspectives on whether it's wise for Barack Obama to keep Robert Gates on as the Secretary of Defense. Slate's Fred Kaplan, whose perspective on military and national security issues I regularly enjoy, described Gates as "an excellent choice" and "a stroke of brilliance."

In his nearly two years at the helm of the Pentagon, Gates has delivered a series of speeches on the future direction of military policy. He has urged officers to recognize the shift in the face of warfare from the World War II legacy of titanic armored battles between comparably mighty foes to the modern reality of small shadow wars against terrorists and insurgents.

More than that, he has called for systematic adjustments to this new reality: canceling weapons systems that aren't suited to these kinds of wars and building more weapons that are; reforming the promotion boards to reward and advance the creative officers who have proved most adept at this style of warfare; rethinking the roles and missions of the individual branches of the armed services; siphoning some of the military's missions, especially those dealing with "nation building," to civilian agencies.

From the start, he knew that he wouldn't have time to make a lot of headway in these campaigns -- which, within the military, represent fairly radical ideas. His intent was to spell out an agenda, and lay the groundwork, for the next administration.

Now it seems he's going to be in the next administration. And it's a good bet that President Barack Obama will be more receptive to Gates' agenda than President George W. Bush ever was. First, Obama is open to new ideas generally. Second, at his Nov. 25 press conference, Obama said he would direct his new budget director to go over every program, every line item, with an eye toward eliminating those that don't work or aren't needed -- and he pointedly included the Department of Defense among the agencies to be audited.

In short, Gates might be able to do many of the things that until now he has managed only to advocate.

The takeaway is pretty straightforward -- Obama and Gates are on the same page when it comes to systemic reform, and Obama has come to believe that Gates' presence makes it more likely to see the changes happen. Why? Because, as Kaplan noted, "A fresher face would, first, take a year or so discovering what needs changing and then might get thwarted by bureaucratic and congressional resistance."

MATTHEWS TAKING SENATE RUN SERIOUSLY.... The LA Times reported the other day that Chris Matthews, the MSNBC "Hardball" host and a former Capitol Hill Democratic staffer, sat down with Democratic leaders in Pennsylvania earlier this week to "discuss the prospect" of a Senate campaign.

This has been the subject of speculation for months -- Matthews even conceded interest during a "Colbert Report" appearance a few months ago -- and FiveThirtyEight reports that the MSNBC host appears to be increasingly serious about challenging Sen. Arlen Specter (R) in 2010.

Chris Matthews, it appears, is in.

FiveThirtyEight has been hearing for some time that Matthews is serious about running for the United States Senate, but it took a trip to Georgia among the Georgia-runoff-congregated and well-connected Obama organizer throng to confirm.

According to multiple sources, who confirmed the Tip O'Neill staffer-cum-MSNBC host has negotiated with veteran Obama staffers to enlist in his campaign, Chris Matthews is likely to run for United States Senate in Pennsylvania in 2010. Matthews, 62, would run as a Democrat. Arlen Specter, the aging Republican incumbent, will be 80 if he chooses to run for re-election.

If Matthews runs, it's safe to assume he would have some serious competition for the Democratic Party's nomination. Reps. Allyson Schwartz and Joe Sestak, and state Rep. Josh Shapiro, have all expressed interest in the race, and the field may grow given the fact that Specter is considered one of the Republicans' more vulnerable incumbents.

As for Matthews' chances, your guess is as good as mine. I glanced through Media Matters' recent hits on Matthews' on-air comments, and it's safe to assume the MSNBC host would have a lot of explaining to do before Pennsylvania Democrats gave him the nod.

LIEBERMAN IN CONTEXT.... We talked yesterday about new reports on Joe Lieberman's financial support for Republican congressional candidates before Election Day, on top of his work on behalf of John McCain and Sarah Palin. I argued that if Senate Democrats had known about this before their recent caucus vote, the outcome probably would have been the same.

Ezra had a different, and thought-provoking, look at the same circumstances.

Take the recent line on Joe Lieberman seriously. Imagine he simply was a Republican. A generic moderate Republican. A Chris Shays Republican. And as a Republican, he voted frequently against Democratic priorities, attacked progressive bills on the cable channels, and endorsed his fellow Republicans for office.

But imagine too that his state was changing, and his party looked unlikely to retake power, and for reasons of opportunism, he began talking with Harry Reid about switching to the Democratic Party. And Reid convinced him, though it took a lot of inducements and a lot of forgiveness, because in the Senate, one more vote can be worth a lot. Would most observers understand that as a coup for the Democrats or a capitulation to the opportunist? Or maybe both?

Interesting; I hadn't thought about it quite this way. If Lieberman was a Republican -- an actual, self-identified, caucusing Republican -- and wanted to switch parties, there probably would be a much stronger willingness to accept and indulge his campaign efforts on behalf of GOP candidates. This was certainly the case seven years ago when Jim Jeffords crossed the aisle. Party-switchers are necessarily coups for the receiving party, even if that means accommodating the partisan work he/she did before the switch.

Indeed, it would have to be a coup precisely because of what party association entails. If Republican Lieberman were approaching Reid right now about a switch, he'd effectively (if not literally) be telling Reid, "I'm going to start voting with Dems on key issues, endorsing Democratic candidates, and contributing financially to Democratic campaigns."

Of course, this helps underscore the one aspect of Lieberman's conduct that offends Democrats most: betrayal. If he was a Republican who's now prepared to join the Democratic caucus, there'd at least be some consistency to his decision making -- he would have spent 2008 doing what other Republicans were doing in support of the GOP ticket and down-ballot candidates. That's irritating, but it's not treachery.

Except, Lieberman wasn't an actual Republican, and the context matters. He led "Democrats for McCain" after promising his own constituents to help elect a Democratic president. Just as importantly, he used his role as a "Democrat" to lend credibility to the Republican message and its candidate slate. Had Lieberman been a genuine Republican, this dynamic wouldn't have existed.

And taking Ezra's thought experiment a little further, suppose Lieberman was now poised to leave the Republican Party, and Democrats were prepared to welcome him with open arms, including "a lot of inducements and a lot of forgiveness." How rational would it be for the Senate caucus to then make Lieberman the chairman of the committee responsible for oversight of a Democratic administration?

READY ON DAY ONE.... There have been some reports recently that the transition team would love to have major pieces of legislation sitting on the Oval Office desk, awaiting the president's signature, literally on Barack Obama's first day in office.

Democratic leaders in Congress seem fairly anxious to accommodate.

Democratic Congressional leaders and the nascent Obama administration are moving quickly to assert control over federal policy, aiming to have economic, health and spending legislation waiting on the new president's desk almost the minute he gets back down Pennsylvania Avenue from the inauguration.

Given the severity of the problems facing the nation, officials on Capitol Hill and in the Obama team say Democrats have put their schedule on fast-forward rather than allowing the usual lull between the start of the new Congress, this time on Jan. 6, and President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in two weeks later.

Lawmakers and staff members are already laying the groundwork for a running start, and Congress is scheduled to remain in session once its expanded Democratic majorities are sworn in.

Earlier this week, Congressional Quarterly reported (no link available) that senators have been told they should expect to work throughout January, and the House "hopes to have the stimulus ready for Obama around the time he takes office." One Hill aide said, "We are already tired, and he hasn't even been inaugurated yet."

Expect a fast start come January.

OBAMA'S THANKSGIVING MESSAGE.... I noted yesterday that Barack Obama and his transition team, after seeing the markets reach new lows last Thursday, began a full-court press, emphasizing a new economic message/development every day since. It led, among other things, to three press conferences in three days.

I figured there wasn't too much the president-elect would do Thanksgiving, but lo and behold, the streak continued with a new Obama message this morning, recognizing the holiday, and at the same time, reminding Americans that our economic conditions will improve in time.

"Nearly 150 years ago, in one of the darkest years of our nation's history, President Abraham Lincoln set aside the last Thursday in November as a day of Thanksgiving," Obama said. "America was split by Civil War. But Lincoln said in his first Thanksgiving decree that difficult times made it even more appropriate for our blessings to be -- and I quote -- 'gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American people.'

"This week, the American people came together with families and friends to carry on this distinctly American tradition. We gave thanks for loved ones and for our lasting pride in our communities and our country. We took comfort in good memories while looking forward to the promise of change.

"But this Thanksgiving also takes place at a time of great trial for our people.

"Across the country, there were empty seats at the table, as brave Americans continue to serve in harm's way from the mountains of Afghanistan to the deserts of Iraq. We honor and give thanks for their sacrifice, and stand by the families who endure their absence with such dignity and resolve.

"At home, we face an economic crisis of historic proportions. More and more Americans are worried about losing a job or making their mortgage payment. Workers are wondering if next month's paycheck will pay next month's bills. Retirees are watching their savings disappear, and students are struggling with the cost of tuition.

"It's going to take bold and immediate action to confront this crisis. That's why I'm committed to forging a new beginning from the moment I take office as President of the United States. Earlier this week, I announced my economic team. This talented and dedicated group is already hard at work crafting an Economic Recovery Plan that will create or save 2.5 million new jobs, while making the investments we need to fuel long-term economic growth and stability.

"But this Thanksgiving, we are reminded that the renewal of our economy won't come from policies and plans alone -- it will take the hard work, innovation, service, and strength of the American people.

"I have seen this strength firsthand over many months -- in workers who are ready to power new industries, and farmers and scientists who can tap new sources of energy; in teachers who stay late after school, and parents who put in that extra hour reading to their kids; in young Americans enlisting in a time of war, seniors who volunteer their time, and service programs that bring hope to the hopeless.

"It is a testament to our national character that so many Americans took time out this Thanksgiving to help feed the hungry and care for the needy. On Wednesday, I visited a food bank at Saint Columbanus Parish in Chicago. There -- as in so many communities across America -- folks pitched in time and resources to give a lift to their neighbors in need. It is this spirit that binds us together as one American family -- the belief that we rise and fall as one people; that we want that American Dream not just for ourselves, but for each other.

"That's the spirit we must summon as we make a new beginning for our nation. Times are tough. There are difficult months ahead. But we can renew our nation the same way that we have in the many years since Lincoln's first Thanksgiving: by coming together to overcome adversity; by reaching for -- and working for -- new horizons of opportunity for all Americans.

"So this weekend -- with one heart, and one voice, the American people can give thanks that a new and brighter day is yet to come."

IRAQI PARLIAMENT APPROVES SOFA.... Just 10 days ago, Iraq's cabinet overwhelmingly approved a security agreement with the U.S. that calls for a withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2011. The measure then went to the Iraqi Parliament for approval, but success was not a given.

As it turns out, it passed rather easily.

Iraq's parliament approved Thursday a security pact with the United States that lets American troops stay in the country for three more years.

The vote in favor of the pact was backed by the ruling coalition's Shiite and Kurdish blocs as well as the largest Sunni Arab bloc, which had demanded concessions for supporting the deal.

The breakdown of the vote was not immediately available. But parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said an "overwhelming majority" of lawmakers who attended the session voted in favor. Parliament's secretariat, which counted lawmakers as they entered the chamber, said 220 out of 275 legislators attended.

An AFP report added:

The vote came after a flurry of last-minute negotiations in which the main Sunni parties secured a package of political reforms from the government and a commitment to hold a referendum on the pact in the middle of next year.

Should the Iraqi government decide to cancel the pact after the referendum it would have to give Washington one year's notice, meaning that troops would be allowed to remain in the country only until the middle of 2010.

It prompted Spencer Ackerman to respond, "That would be ... give or take a few days ... why, sixteen months after Barack Obama takes office! Happy Thanksgiving from Baghdad, Barack!"

A DIFFERENT KIND OF AUTO BAILOUT.... [Note: this piece prompted some interesting discussion and emails yesterday, so I'm bumping it up for some additional promotion]

Obviously, policy makers have been mulling over what to do, if anything, about the fate of Ford, GM, and Chrysler. The American auto manufacturers are in deep trouble, and determining what kind of rescue package would be most effective has been on the minds of lawmakers, the Bush administration, and the Obama transition team.

But perhaps the political world has been looking at this the wrong way. Jeffrey Leonard, the CEO of Global Environment Fund, has a provocative idea in an online-only piece for the Washington Monthly -- maybe it's car buyers, not car companies, who should get a bailout.

[L]et's get back to basics: what are we trying to accomplish, anyway? Presumably, Washington's primary goals are to save jobs and to jumpstart the economy. Like it or not, getting people to buy cars is one of the most effective ways to get an economy moving. Cars have what economists call a multiplier effect, perhaps the greatest of any product, because every car that's purchased creates a cascade of further stimuli -- not just to those who make the car, but also to those who repair it, fuel it, outfit it, wash it, and so forth.

That's why Washington has a major incentive to use companies like GM, Ford, or Chrysler to help us through the economic crisis. The way to do it is to offer a 50 percent rebate check to every purchaser of a new, American-made car produced by any auto company that signs up for a voluntary restructuring program with the federal government. The rebate would be paid by the Treasury Department, and then exchanged for preferred stock in the company that produced the car.

In essence, this plan would replicate the principles of our banking bailout, in which cash infusions from Uncle Sam into financial institutions have been linked to equity stakes in those institutions. In this case, millions of Americans could get new cars, aiding the economy with every car-related transaction. Detroit could clear out its sizeable unsold inventory and avoid taking on more debt, and Washington could gain a lever with which to change Detroit's behavior. The government could even consider contributing some or all of the stock to the pension and healthcare plans of autoworkers, to help reduce the pressure of these unfunded liabilities on Detroit's bottom line.

Leonard anticipates a heavy price-tag associated with his ambitious proposal, but the costs would be comparable to the $25 billion bailout that the automakers have already put on the table.

Reading the piece, I had a couple of concerns about rewarding a flawed Detroit business model, and adding millions of cars to the road that aren't exactly efficient, environmentally-friendly vehicles. But Leonard anticipated these concerns, and tackles them head-on.

It's a really interesting idea. Take a look.

WOULD IT HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE?.... Senate Democrats knew that Joe Lieberman had endorsed the Republican presidential candidate. And that he'd appeared at the Republican National Convention. And that he'd smeared the Democratic candidate repeatedly throughout the year. They were also well aware of the fact that he publicly endorsed and defended a variety of down-ballot Republicans before Election Day.

But did Senate Democrats realize that Lieberman also financially supported Republican congressional candidates? Apparently not.

When Democrats gathered last week to decide the fate of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a pair of senators-elect, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, stepped up to offer symbolically important speeches.

Having ridden the wave of support for President-elect Barack Obama, Udall and Merkley spoke out in favor of the spirit of reconciliation and moving on from the campaign, in which Lieberman was one of the highest profile supporters of the Republican presidential ticket.

But no one in the room knew, as Merkley spoke, that Lieberman had supported Merkley's opponent, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). Lieberman, through his Reuniting Our Country PAC, gave Smith's reelection bid $5,000 on Oct. 10, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. [...]

Lieberman's support of Smith came the same weekend he wrote an op-ed in the St. Paul Pioneer Press defending Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) for his work as chairman of an investigative subcommittee on Lieberman's homeland security committee. The same day he wrote a check to Smith, Lieberman's ROC PAC gave $5,000 to Rep. Peter King, the Long Island Republican.

Call me crazy, but when a senator speaks at the Republican convention, repeats Republican talking points, endorses Republican candidates, and gives thousands of dollars to Republican campaigns, the senator certainly looks like a Republican. But maybe that's just me.

But here's the question to consider this morning: if the Senate Democratic caucus had known about these contributions, would it have made any difference when they were voting to give Lieberman everything he asked for? Would Udall and Merkley have paused before rewarding Lieberman for contributing to the campaigns trying to defeat them?

I kind of doubt it.

THE ATTACKS IN MUMBAI.... Terrorist attacks are not, tragically, entirely uncommon in India, especially this year, but the events in Mumbai have been on another level of magnitude.

Indian police commandos rescued some hostages on Thursday as standoffs continued against heavily armed militants who a day earlier had swept into Mumbai, India's commercial capital, in a shocking series of coordinated and bloody attacks.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in a televised address that the attackers probably had "external linkages" -- the first official indication that the authorities were likely to blame outsiders.

The hooded gunmen, firing automatic weapons and throwing hand grenades, attacked at least two luxury hotels, the city's largest train station, a Jewish center, a movie theater and a hospital.

The Mumbai police said Thursday afternoon that the attacks killed at least 101 people and wounded at least 314. It was not immediately clear how many hostages were freed in the commando operation or how many were still being held.

This year, the more routine terrorist attacks in India have featured bombs left in public areas. The coordinated, well-orchestrated attacks that began yesterday were executed by young men with machine guns, who brazenly made no effort to hide their identity. The LA Times speculated that the attacks "required a previously unseen degree of reconnaissance and planning," leading some experts to suspect "the likely involvement of experienced commanders."

A group calling itself the Deccan Mujaheddin sent an email to Indian news outlets claiming responsibility, but it seems no one has heard of the group and it's unclear if their message is legitimate.

There are, not surprisingly, questions about a possible al Qaeda connection, but many are skeptical -- al Qaeda doesn't usually take hostages.

As for the attackers' targets, Brian Genchur, a spokesman for a private intelligence group, noted, "As opposed to trying to rile up extremist elements in India's Hindu and Muslim communities, the attacks in Mumbai are going after the country's tourism industry, spreading fear to Western tourists and businesspeople who frequent India, thereby hitting at India's economic lifelines." Indeed, Christine Fair, a senior political scientist and a South Asia expert at the RAND Corporation ,added, "When one thinks of the Indian global elite, one thinks of Mumbai. It's the financial city. It's the entertainment city. It's India's New York."

The most recent report suggests that Indian police had killed six of the suspected attackers and captured nine.

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Devastating terror attacks in Mumbai: "Several people have been killed in a series of coordinated attacks targeting Mumbai sites popular with tourists and business people, according to police and CNN's sister network in India. Ongoing battles between police and gunmen were reported at two five-star hotels. Gunmen armed with automatic weapons and grenades attacked targets including the hotels, a cafe, and a train station, police say. Maharashtra state government spokesman Bhushan Gagri said 78 people killed and about 200 wounded, while police confirmed 26 deaths."

* The FBI warned of a "plausible but unsubstantiated" threat of a terrorist bomb attack against the New York train system.

* Obama certainly seems to have restored some confidence among investors.

* New reports today shows unemployment, consumer spending, factory orders, and new-home sales all moving in the wrong direction.

* If I didn't know better, I might think the Bush administration actually likes increased greenhouse gas emissions.

* Good to see the Obamas volunteering at a Chicago food-bank today.

* For the first time on record, fewer Americans are getting cancer. "It is a significant milestone," said Otis Brawley, chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society, which produces the report with the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. "It is a really big deal."

* It's great to see the Center for American Progress generating some much-deserved recognition.

* The Franken campaign is having to regroup after a major setback today.

* Obama is bringing his chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau, with him to the White House.

* Reading over Sullivan's Von Hoffmann Award Nominees today has been pretty amusing.

* Donald Rumsfeld's revisionism is literally unbelievable.

* The Wall Street Journal reports that "at least 85 of the 135-odd members of President-elect Barack Obama's agency review teams served in the Clinton administration." Since Clinton is the only Democratic president of the last 28 years, that doesn't seem especially surprising.

* National Review really needs to keep up on its slang.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

PUTTING THE LAME IN LAME-DUCK.... Ryan Avent considers what could have been.

[George W. Bush] very easily could have asked Congress to send him a stimulus bill, even a modest one, amid an intensification of what will likely be the worst recession in thirty years, if not longer. It would have made a difference. It would have made the season a little more bearable for the growing numbers of unemployed, and it would have made Obama's task a little less daunting.

Instead, he's spending his waning days weakening environmental rules, helping his cronies get jobs in the professional bureaucracy, and preparing his pardons. What a stupid, despicable man. History can't judge him too cruelly.

I am, not surprisingly, sympathetic to this perspective. But reading it reminded me of something: for all the talk in far-right circles about Bush not being conservative enough, some of his most painful disasters came because he refused to stray from his conservative ideas.

This is probably a little too casual an analysis, but it seems this touches on one of the more glaring differences between Bush and Reagan -- both instinctually backed conservative ideas driven entirely by far-right ideology, but Reagan reversed course when those ideas failed. Bush didn't.

When Reagan's tax cuts didn't work, he reversed course and approved significant tax increases (several times). When Reagan's antagonism towards the Soviets didn't work, he reversed course and compromised on arms control.

But Bush, with very few exceptions, could never own up to his errors.

Right now, he has nothing to lose by accepting a stimulus package, except his ideological pride. So it doesn't happen, no matter how much it might help. His approach to the economy has been a spectacular failure, and when given a chance to go in a different direction, Bush has decided on a legacy of consistency, instead of success.

PRESS-FRIENDLY (FOR A REASON).... The Washington Times reports that Barack Obama has held more press conferences, and answered more press questions, than any modern president-elect.

In the 22 days since winning the White House, President-elect Barack Obama has taken 22 questions from reporters and has done two sit-down television interviews.

The Democrat held his fourth press conference since Nov. 4 in Chicago Wednesday morning -- his third in as many days -- an unprecedented bit of access for reporters who have grown accustomed to President Bush's infrequent moments taking questions and already surpassing the last four presidents-in-waiting.

Mr. Obama has beat his four predecessors in number of post-election, pre-inauguration press conferences, and is inheriting a more troubled nation than any of those men. With one Cabinet post officially named, he is working at a faster clip than former President Bill Clinton.

It wasn't too long ago that reporters traveling with the Obama campaign publicly predicted that, if elected, Obama was likely to severely limit the media's access. At least this week, he's held three press conferences in three days, and chatted at some length with Barbara Walters.

But I can't help but think the context matters here. Is the president-elect proving his commitment to transparency, openness, and media access? Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. I think it's more likely Obama is filling a leadership void and trying to settle the financial markets and offer investors some reassurance about the future.

Consider the last six days. On Friday, the transition team deliberately leaked Geithner's name for the express purpose of giving Wall Street a boost (it worked). On Saturday, Obama delivered a radio/YouTube address on a massive rescue/stimulus package. On Sunday, Obama aides fanned out on the morning shows to talk up the president-elect's economic plan. On Monday, we were introduced to Obama's economic team. On Tuesday, we were introduced to Obama's budgetary team. On Wednesday, we learned about Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

One day, it's Geithner and Summers. Another day, it's Volcker. Another day, it's Orszag. I can appreciate the criticism about Obama not having named a Labor Secretary yet, but I wonder if the transition team is just looking for an excuse to hold another economic-related press conference next week.

This isn't complicated. Bush is irrelevant and Poulson lacks credibility. It's a crisis, and Obama is filling a void. And at the risk of making a post hoc argument, consider the results -- the Dow closed at 7,552 on Thursday. The next day, Obama's full-court press began. The Dow has since gone up about 1,000 points. (I'm not arguing that Obama is single handedly responsible for improving the stock market, and I realize that a multitude of factors, some unpredictable, have produced the recent rally. I am suggesting, however, that Obama may have contributed some calm to the markets.)

MSNBC had a chyron this morning that read, "Obama will address economic woes today, Pres. Bush to pardon turkey."

Sounds to me like the relevant players now realize their role.

JUST BELOW GATES.... Following up on this morning's item, one of the key decisions for Barack Obama relating to the Pentagon is not just whether to keep Robert Gates on as Defense Secretary, but also determining who will make up the rest of the senior leadership in the department.

Chris Bowers argued yesterday, "If Gates were kept on as Secretary of Defense, it apparently would also mean that all of his top advisors would also stay on." That, of course, matters quite a bit -- as reasonable as Gates is, his deputies have considerable influence on Pentagon decision-making, and they're not as inclined towards pragmatism as their boss.

It's encouraging, then, that while Gates appears to be staying on, his immediate team is likely to see some significant changes. The Washington Post reported earlier that, whether Gates takes on a short-term or long-term role in the Obama administration, "most of the deputies serving under him would be replaced."

And who are they being replaced with? The news is encouraging on this front, too.

Secretary Gates' deputy at the Pentagon is slated to be Richard Danzig, who was Navy secretary under President Clinton. The #3 (policy) will PROBABLY be Michele Flournoy, a Clinton administration veteran who was dual-hatted as principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and threat reduction, and deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy.

If the report proves accurate, Flournoy will replace Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, who, as Yglesias noted, is "Gates' most pernicious subordinate" and a former aide to Dick Cheney.

For those discouraged by the Gates news, this should at least be mildly reassuring.

OBAMA'S SHOPPING ADVICE.... The New York Daily News' Tom DeFrank asked Barack Obama at this morning's press conference about the shopping season. "[A] lot of retailers are worrying that this year [that a drop in consumer spending during the holidays] could be a disaster that this economy can ill afford. Do you have any shopping advice for nervous consumers?"

It's a tricky question. The president-elect doesn't want to discourage people from spending money right now. He also doesn't want to look like Bush did in the aftermath of 9/11, suggesting shopping in the midst of a crisis is somehow the right thing -- the only thing -- for Americans to do.

It looked to me like Obama threaded the needle pretty well.

"Look, I think families understandably are nervous and concerned about their economic situation. We've seen job loss. We've seen flatlining wages and incomes. The economic statistics have been bad, and people are watching television and understandably are nervous about their future.

"There is no doubt that during tough economic times family budgets are going to be pinched. I think it is important for the American people, though, to have confidence that we've gone through recessions before, we've gone through difficult times before, that my administration intends to get this economy back on track, that we are going to create 2.5 million jobs over the next two years, that our future is bright if we make good decisions.

"And what we don't want to do is get caught up in a spiral where people pull back from the economy, businesses then pull back, jobs are reduced and we get into a downward spiral.

"What we want to do is to be sober, to be clear, to recognize that we've got some real adjustments that have to be made. That's true in individual businesses, it's true in terms of individual family budgets, it's also true for the economy as a whole.

"But we continue to have the best workers in the world, we continue to have the most innovation in the world, we continue to be in possession of extraordinary resources that if we harness properly will get this economy moving over the next couple of years, but also over the next two decades or three decades.

"So people should understand that help is on the way."

In other words, shop responsibly. Sounds reasonable enough.

FROM THE TOP.... At his third economic-related press conference in as many days, Barack Obama announced the creation of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, modeled on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board created by President Eisenhower to "provide rigorous analysis and vigorous oversight of our intelligence community by individuals outside of government -- individuals who would be candid and unsparing in their assessment." He introduced former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker as the chairman of the panel, and University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee as its staff director and chief economist.

During the Q&A, CNN's Ed Henry asked if there were enough new faces on his team to fulfill Obama's pledge to bring change to Washington. The president-elect first noted it would be even more jarring if his team didn't include officials with experience from the Clinton administration.

"It would be surprising if I selected a Treasury secretary who had had no connection with the last Democratic administration because that would mean the person had no experience in Washington whatsoever. And I suspect you would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I selected a Treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council ... who had no experience whatsoever.... What I don't want to do is to somehow suggest that because you served in the last Democratic administration that you're somehow barred from serving again -- because we need people are going to be able to hit the ground running."

But even more importantly, Obama insisted that it won't be his team that shapes the vision for his administration.

"[U]nderstand where the vision for change comes from first and foremost: it comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure that my team is implementing it.

It was the first real inkling that Obama is aware of the media chatter, and he hopes to put some of this to rest, reminding his audience that he plans to "combine experience with fresh thinking." The change, according to his argument, will come from his vision, not his cabinet picks.

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* John McCain made it official yesterday, holding a press conference to announce that he will seek re-election to the Senate in 2010.

* Obama probably won't head to down to Georgia personally to campaign for Jim Martin (D) in the state's Senate runoff contest.

* Al Franken experienced a setback this morning when a canvassing board rejected his lawyers' request on a review of thousands of rejected absentee ballots.

* Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) was a leading candidate to replace Barack Obama in the Senate, but he reportedly turned down the offer from Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D).

* Speaking of replacing senators, who should get Hillary Clinton's seat? Karl Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac make the case today for Sen. Bill Clinton.

THE DEBATE ON COMMISSIONS.... In his must-read cover story in the new issue of the Washington Monthly, editor Charles Homans argues that relying on commissions instead of subpoenas may produce more answers on what the Bush administration has been up to. Responding indirectly, Jack Goldsmith, a former assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under Bush, argues that neither commissions nor subpoenas are a good idea.

It reminds us that Homans' piece is the subject of a discussion at the TPM Cafe this week. Scott Horton had a very good item on the article, and sides with Homans on the commissions.

Charles Homans' article in the current Washington Monthly is a must-read for those who will be returning to Washington in January. He has catalogued what Donald Rumsfeld would call the "known unknowns" -- the areas where we know something went on that the Bush Administration has struggled to keep in the dark. As he notes, we come to almost identical conclusions after approaching the question from different perspectives. The next step should be to fill in the gaps from the historical narrative. Who did what, when and how. We need to establish the facts and we need to force the publication of the key documents which are still being withheld. That's our right as a democracy.

I believe that the commission approach is the way to go forward. I don't deny that Congressional hearings could make some headway. However, I am not persuaded that the Congressional committees have the stamina, the concentration and the expertise to do what is necessary. Over the last year I attended all but two of the hearings the House Judiciary Committee arranged to dig into the torture issue. Bush Administration witnesses used every evasive maneuver known to a wily lawyer to avoid answering the questions raised. And the members did not for the most part know how to ask questions. When a completely dismissive or evasive answer came, they went on to the next question. Questioning needs to be done by a professional interrogator who is focused on building a complete record, not playing to the cameras and the audience in the constituency back home.

Under President Bush, the Constitution took a shellacking. We had the most devious, secretive government in our nation's history. In the end, it was at war with the rule of law itself. But this isn't the time to be talking about indictments and prosecutions, though that may come in the fullness of time. Now is the time to force those dark secrets from the recesses in which they've been hidden and insure that the public fully understands what was done by the most incompetent, corrupt and lawless government we've ever had. Charting those dealings is the first step. Correcting them is the second.

WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME DEMS.... Matt Corley found this gem, showing far-right uber-activist Grover Norquist on CNBC yesterday, discussing the economy.

"Well, the economy's in the present state because when the Democrats took the House and Senate in 2006, you knew that those tax increases were going to come in 2010. The stock market began to collapse as soon as you recognized that those old tax rates were coming back. So, we're in the middle of responding to those tax increases."

The substance of such transparent nonsense is easy to ignore. It's hard to imagine even Norquist believing his own ridiculous rhetoric.

What I find harder to believe is why Norquist was invited onto CNBC to discuss these issues anyway. We're talking about a guy who's described the estate tax as the moral equivalent of the Nazi Holocaust. Of course he's going to make stupid arguments, such as blaming the financial crisis on tax increases that haven't happened.

Maybe now would be a good time for television bookers to take Norquist's name out of their rolodexes?

A STEP FORWARD ON GAY ADOPTIONS.... A Florida judge ruled yesterday that a state law banning adoption by gay men and lesbians is unconstitutional. "The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption," said Judge Cindy Lederman, adding that the law violated equal protection rights for children and their prospective parents.

I realize there are conservatives, including the Republicans' most recent presidential nominee, who believe children without parents are better off in orphanages than being adopted by gay people. What's less obvious to me is how they rationalize this position, beyond just blind ignorance and bigotry. "Gays are icky" usually doesn't impress judges in the midst of legal proceedings.

It's why I found this fascinating.

The state presented experts who argued that there was a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among same-sex couples, that their relationships were less stable than those of heterosexuals, and that their children suffered a societal stigma.

Obviously, attorneys representing the state of Florida have to go to court with something to argue, but it's telling that these were the best arguments the lawyers could come up with. It's effectively state-sanctioned stereotyping -- a lot of gays are unstable addicts, the argument goes, so no gays should be allowed to adopt.

It's as if Archie Bunker got a law degree. We are in the 21st century, right?

What's especially odd is that the argument is that adopting is actually pretty difficult. Officials from social service agencies go to prospective parents' homes and check to see if, say, they abuse drugs or alcohol. If they do -- here's the kicker -- they don't get to adopt.

In this particular case, Frank Martin Gill and his partner have raised two foster children over the last four years. His Miami home is the only home the two boys have known. The kids, by all available evidence, are "thriving" after having been allegedly abused by their birth parents. Florida officials insisted that the children would have to be taken away. The court said no.

The state attorney general's office is planning to appeal, and the case is likely to end up before the Florida Supreme Court.

JAMES DOBSON VS. KATHLEEN PARKER.... Last week, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker urged the Republican Party to move away from the "evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP."

Yesterday, James Dobson responded to Parker's advice. As one might imagine, he was less than pleased.

The accuracy of her numbers isn't the point, anyway -- it's the notion that, because there are people of many faiths in the United States, those of the Christian faith must not think or act like Christians when engaging the public square. [...]

[W]e don't need an embossed note from Ms. Parker -- or anyone else -- to take part in the political dialogue -- of either party. Our invitation to engage the process comes straight from our Founders. We will continue to stand up for the sanctity of human life, the sacredness of marriage and the right to have a say in the principles that will continue to guide this nation founded on biblical principles.

The headline on Dobson's piece reads, "We Won't Be Silenced."

I'm certain Kathleen Parker can defend herself, but looking over Dobson's harangue, I think he missed Parker's point. Her column didn't argue that Dobson and the religious right should be silenced, but rather, that the Republican Party would be wise to stop listening to them. Indeed, Parker's piece wasn't really directed at the Dobsons of the world; it was directed at the GOP about the Dobsons of the world.

Dobson seems to have taken all of this quite personally, insisting that politically-active evangelical Republicans must fight back at these efforts to squelch their free speech. As far as I can tell, no one wants to infringe on Dobson's ability to promote his far-right, vaguely theocratic agenda. The point here is whether the Republican Party is going to take Dobson's radical demands seriously, and allow the religious right to dictate the party's policy agenda.

By becoming the party of the religious right, Parker argued, the GOP has alienated "other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle."

Dobson didn't really respond to this. In fact, he didn't even try. His argument is premised on the notion that he deserves to speak his mind. No one disagrees. Whether anyone listens is another matter entirely.

REPUBLICANS' HURT FEELINGS.... Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) apparently refused to speak to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) because McConnell's feelings were hurt. It seems the Democratic efforts to defeat McConnell's re-election bid had been deemed "overly aggressive."

Likewise, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) reportedly told colleagues at a Senate prayer breakfast last week that she feels "lingering resentment toward Democratic senators who campaigned against her." Collins reportedly confessed that that she had "trouble forgiving colleagues" who campaigned against her.

It marks an interesting twist in the tension between the two parties -- now, it appears, Democrats are just too mean.

I'm afraid this is pretty silly. Members of one party, as a rule, want to help defeat members of the other party. This does not make them Big Meanies. If Democratic senators traveled to Maine to smear Collins with sleazy attacks and vicious personal lies, I could understand holding a grudge. But as far as I can tell, Dems primarily accused Collins of voting with Bush too much of the time. This hardly constitutes a cheap shot. Indeed, it happens to be true.

Publius made a compelling case that Collins is "personalizing politics" as an excuse to do what she's been doing.

[T]his "hurt feelings" business is so absurd. Collins will -- as she has always done -- vote with the Republicans virtually all the time. Even better, now she has an excuse to justify doing what she's always done. On those rare instances she doesn't, it will be because there are a handful of votes where the people of Maine (1) are paying attention and (2) actually care. It's hard to get both #1 and #2, which is why she doesn't have to vote with the Dems very often.

Similarly, in the next Congressional session, Republicans like Specter and Snowe and Voinovich and Gregg will vote with Dems only when they feel political pressure to do so from their state constituency. Otherwise, they won't (which will be most of the time).

Personality has nothing to do with it.

Quite right. The Republicans' canard about their bruised sensitivities has quickly become tiresome. When GOP lawmakers opposed the initial Wall Street bailout, they said it was because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings. In reality, they just didn't like the bill.

When Mitch McConnell plans to go after Dems in the next Congress, he says it's about Democrats being mean to him during the election. In reality, his tactics would be the same regardless.

And when Susan Collins talks about strained relations with the majority party, she says it's about campaign tactics. In reality, she's a Republican who votes with her party most of the time.

GATES.... As has been widely reported, Barack Obama will keep Defense Secretary Robert Gates at his post next year. This is not a surprise -- speculation about Gates staying on was common even before the election -- but it is unprecedented: this will be the "first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party."

The details of the arrangement, which has not yet been formally confirmed, are still somewhat elusive. The Washington Post reports that Gates' extended tenure will be part of a "'rolling transition,' in which Gates would stay on during a phased changeover of key political appointees at the Pentagon. Others said he could stay in the job indefinitely. Under both scenarios, most of the deputies serving under him would be replaced, the sources said."

So, is this a good move or not? At first blush, it seems more than a little discouraging for Democrats. It's not, for example, "change" if the Defense Secretary under Bush is the same Defense Secretary under Obama. For that matter, the decision doesn't help dispel the notion that Democrats are weak on national security issues if Democratic presidents keep turning to Republicans to lead the Pentagon.

And yet, I'm not at all convinced that Gates is a poor choice. In fact, I've seen ample evidence that Gates is exactly who Obama needs at the Pentagon right now.

Gates may be a leading member of Bush's team, but he represents a complete break from the neo-conservatives who dominated the administration's first term. Gates is considered a non-ideological pragmatist, who's open to competing ideas, and who enjoys broad respect from the brass and lawmakers in both parties. In the midst of two wars, having a competent and qualified Pentagon chief, who has no partisan or ideological axe to grind, will bring a degree of steadiness and consistency that may benefit Obama enormously.

Consider a few perspectives from insightful observers. Spencer Ackerman:

For one thing, the gesture shown to the generals and admirals would be instantly understood and very likely reciprocated. Second, Gates is the sort of public servant who would understand that his duty as secretary is to manage withdrawal, not fight it. Third, bringing a Republican on board with withdrawal is both substantively good for implementing the political consensus that the public tells us already exists; and would make it more complicated for the ultras in the GOP to establish the stab-in-the-back narrative that they'll launch no matter what. And finally, whatever hits the Democratic brand would take by keeping a Republican on board temporarily would be wiped out by the esteem that the Broders of the world would suddenly find for Obama, as well as by the inevitable replacement of Gates by a Democrat.

Scott Horton:

[I]n the annals of the Defense Department, Gates's name will go down as a healer. His quiet professionalism and competence are exactly what is called for right now, and Barack Obama could not find a better secretary of defense.

Our very own Hilzoy:

Basically, I think that there are two main reasons for keeping Gates. The first is that it's very important to get bipartisan cover for the withdrawal from Iraq if we want to avoid some future conservative "if only the Democrats had let us win" story. (Likewise, bipartisan cover would be very useful if Obama decides to cut some weapons systems.) The second is that by all accounts the military have a lot of respect for Gates; keeping him on, therefore, would allow Obama to bypass the need to establish his own credibility and that of his Secretary of Defense with them. (Yes, I know: this shouldn't be necessary. But it is.)

Neither of these reasons would cut any ice with me if Gates had been a bad Secretary of Defense. But he hasn't. He's been very good, under difficult conditions. Moreover, he seems like the sort of person who would either try to implement Obama's policies rather than working to undermine them or turn the job down.

Noah Shachtman:

Obama's defense team certainly has serious beefs with Bush's military and diplomatic decisions -- to launch the war, to take resources from Afghanistan, to refuse serious talks with Iran. But, from my limited discussions with [Obama advisor Richard] Danzig and others, the thing that really pisses them off was the management of the Pentagon during the Bush years. The spiraling budgets, the lack of accountability, the slipped deadlines, the circumventing of the chain of command, the politicization of policy -- to former Defense Department stewards like Danzig, those were the real horror shows.

But since Gates has been brought in, things have started to turn. Budgets have begun to return to reality. People lose their jobs when they can't do them right. Experts in their fields are being heard. Sound policy is often trumping adherence to political orthodoxy. And the Pentagon is slowly, slowly starting to focus on today's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's the attraction of Gates.

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Wall Street was relatively quiet today, for a change.

* It looks like Robert Gates will stay on as Defense Secretary. More on this tomorrow.

* Karzai wants a timetable on the war in Afghanistan?

* Hank Paulson has used half of the $700 billion bailout package, and is now eyeing the other half.

* Obama will limit contributions to his inaugural committee. While recent presidents have accepted donations as high as $250,000, Obama will cap contributions at $50,000.

* Is it me, or have there been a lot of criminals working in Bush's White House?

* Fox News won't replace Colmes, and Hannity will host the prime-time show by himself.

* Bush granted 14 pardons and commuted two sentences yesterday, but they didn't involve any well-known names. (There was, however, a certain regional imbalance.)

* Obama's healthcare team means business.

* You know, counter-terrorism really can be a law-enforcement issue, Republican talking points notwithstanding.

* The White House has played fast and loose with the list of "the coalition of the willing."

* Great, Glenn Beck is talking about secession.

* Mark Halperin's complaints about the media and Obama are pretty tiresome.

* Does Hillary Clinton have an "emolument" problem relating to the Secretary of State job?

* CNN will have to re-hire 110 workers who were dismissed for being union members.

* Duke Cunningham apparently doesn't have a lot of friends.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

BRENNAN WITHDRAWS FROM CONSIDERATION.... A number of bloggers -- most notably Glenn Greenwald, Digby, and Andrew Sullivan -- have raised serious concerns about intelligence official John Brennan, who's been rumored to be a possible candidate for either the CIA director or the Director of National Intelligence in the Obama administration.

Brennan's critics accused him of supporting some of the Bush administration's most offensive intelligence-gathering policies, including rendition and "enhanced interrogation techniques." Obama, they said, even if he intended to move far away from those policies, should not make room for Brennan in his administration.

The criticism seems to have had the desired effect. Brennan has withdrawn from consideration for any intelligence post in the Obama administration.

Brennan wrote in a Nov. 25 letter to Obama that he did not want to be a distraction. His potential appointment has raised a firestorm in liberal blogs who associate him with the Bush administration's interrogation, detention and rendition policies.

Brennan was a 25-year veteran of the CIA who helped establish the National Counterterrorism Center and was its first director in 2004.

Obama's advisers had grown increasingly concerned in recent days over online blogs that accused Brennan of condoning harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects, including waterboarding, which critics call torture.

According to the AP report, Brennan opposed waterboarding, and told his CIA colleagues about his concerns privately, while also questioning the legality of several CIA interrogation methods. Indeed, Brennan emphasized that he was twice passed over for intelligence posts in the Bush administration precisely because the White House believed he was too critical of their policies.

In his letter to Obama, Brennan argued, "It has been immaterial to the critics that I have been a strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration such as the pre-emptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics, to include waterboarding. The fact that I was not involved in the decisionmaking process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored."

In response, Glenn Greenwald highlighted Brennan's "lengthy, empathic statements" that made clear he "defended 'enhanced interrogation techniques' and rendition -- grounds enough for making him unacceptable for any top intelligence post -- to say nothing of his strident advocacy for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty."

As for the broader context, Brennan's withdrawal appears to be the direct result of blog coverage. For those who believe bloggers' concerns are inconsequential, this is clear evidence to the contrary.

'THE GORE EFFECT'.... The Politico's Erika Lovley has two published pieces today on politics and global warming, and they're both surprisingly bad.

The first appears under the headline, "Scientists urge caution on global warming." Lovley's article reports, "Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation."

David Roberts explained, "The most notable feature of this 'growing accumulation of global cooling science' is that Lovely doesn't cite a single piece of it. Seriously. Not one."

Indeed, the piece focused heavily on the work of Weather Channel founder Joseph D'Aleo, a conservative meteorologist (not a climate scientist) and infamous global warming denier, and quotes a variety of conservatives who are on the same page, including Marc Morano, a notorious far-right Hill staffer for James Inhofe.

How many scientists are quoted defending the global warming consensus of the scientific community? Zero. Lovley's article reads like something one might find on World Net Daily.

The second piece -- same publication, same writer, same topic -- is even more insulting.

For several years now, skeptics have amusedly eyed a phenomenon known as "The Gore Effect" to half-seriously argue their case against global warming.

The so-called Gore Effect happens when a global warming-related event, or appearance by the former vice president and climate change crusader, Al Gore, is marked by exceedingly cold weather or unseasonably winter weather.

For instance, in March, 2007, a Capitol Hill media briefing on the Senate's new climate bill was cancelled due to a snowstorm.

On Oct. 22, Gore's global warming speech at Harvard University coincided with near 125-year record-breaking low temperatures. And less than a week later, on Oct. 28, the British House of Commons held a marathon debate on global warming during London's first October snowfall since 1922.

While there's no scientific proof that The Gore Effect is anything more than a humorous coincidence, some climate skeptics say it may offer a snapshot of proof that the planet isn't warming as quickly as some climate change advocates say.

For crying out loud. A few global warming deniers think cold weather undermines climate change, and the Politico feels comfortable telling readers that snowstorms "may offer a snapshot of proof"? Seriously?

The Politico did some solid campaign reporting this year. Here's hoping Lovley's articles are an aberration, and not the kind of "journalism" readers can expect as the political world transitions from campaign mode to governing.

THE MAYBERRY MACHIAVELLI FORGETS HIS RECORD.... One of the single most important quotes about Bush's presidency came six years ago. John J. DiIulio Jr., a domestic policy advisor to George W. Bush, told Ron Suskind, ''There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.''

With DiIulio's perspective in mind, it was jaw-dropping to hear Karl Rove insist last night, on national television, that it was policy, not politics, that won out in the Bush White House.

On "Hannity & Colmes" last night, Alan Colmes noted the criticism of Rove for combining politics and policy. Rove argued, "Well, at least in the White House I was in, policy won out, but you had to be aware of the political fallout of what you were going to do in order to contain it and deal with it. You bet. But to, but first and foremost if the president I worked for, George W. Bush, said, 'You know what, let's do right, and the politics will take care of itself.' It didn't mean you were blind to it, but it didn't mean that you needed to focus first and foremost on what you thought was in the right interest of the country."

I've heard Rove say some extraordinary things over the years -- remember in June when he criticized the New York Times for having "outed a CIA agent"? -- but this might be the most ridiculous.

It's tempting to document every instance in which Rove and Bush put political considerations over the national interest, but one would need a book. OK, a book broken out over multiple volumes. Ali Frick summarized this nicely, noting, "Rove personally oversaw the unprecedented politicization of nearly every aspect of Bush's federal government, from the Justice Department to the Environmental Protection Agency to the Office of National Drug Control Policy." And that, of course, is really only scratching the surface.

DiIulio's quote makes clear that Rove's boast is without foundation in reality. DiIulio, an academic with a strong background in public policy, joined the Bush administration with an expectation that the team would, as Rove put it, pursue specific policy goals and let the politics "take care of itself." He assumed that Bush, like most modern presidents, would naturally "focus first and foremost on what you thought was in the right interest of the country."

But that's not what he found. Surrounded by "Mayberry Machiavellis," DiIulio found a West Wing filled with officials who cared about nothing but politics -- how a policy helped Republicans, rallied the base, embarrassed Democrats, raised money, moved poll numbers, aided vulnerable GOP incumbents, etc.

For Rove to claim now that "policy won out" in the Bush White House is literally laughable.

CLAIMING A MANDATE.... In the immediate aftermath of the elections, there were a handful of Republicans who wanted to debate the meaning of the word "mandate." Apparently, Barack Obama's impressive victory -- the highest popular vote margin for a non-incumbent in a half-century -- shouldn't compel lawmakers to help him pass the policy agenda he presented the voters during the campaign.

I couldn't hear the wording of the question, but during today's press event in Chicago, Obama said without hesitation that he'd earned "a mandate to move the country in a new direction and not continue the same old practices that have gotten us into the fix we are in." He added, however, that he's anxious to work with Republicans and listen to their ideas. "[W]e enter into the administration with a sense of humility and a recognition that wisdom is not the monopoly of any political party."

Greg Sargent raised a good point.

This is probably too obvious to point out, but the game here is that Obama is working to frame GOP obstructionism in advance. By simultaneously claiming a mandate while approaching Republicans with "humility" and a request for their help, Obama is boxing out Republican opponents in advance, laying the groundwork to cast them as partisan and hostile to the people's will.

That's why it's still lost on yours truly why people are seeing Obama as "centrist" based on his bipartisan gestures and tone or his "pragmatic" staff picks. This stuff is just about positioning in advance, and the real tell will lie in his actual policies.

Sounds right to me. There's already some question about whether Republican moderates are prepared to break party ranks and cooperate with Dems on the votes that really matter, and Obama's reminder was less than subtle: he's reaching out, and he's prepared to work in good faith, but he's also coming into the presidency in the wake of a veritable landslide (365 electoral votes).

Obama has a progressive policy agenda that's been endorsed by the electorate, the pitch goes, and Republican obstructionism -- "the same old practices" -- should not be viewed kindly.

OBAMA'S BUDGET TEAM.... Yesterday, the president-elect introduced his economic team. This afternoon, Barack Obama returned to the podium to announce his budget team: Peter Orszag as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Robert Nabors as the deputy director. They're pretty impressive folks who'll no doubt serve the nation well.

One thing that came up during the brief event in Chicago is Obama's intention to cut wasteful spending from the budget.

"[I]f we're going to make the investments we need, we must also be willing to shed the spending we don't. In these challenging times, when we are facing both rising deficits and a sinking economy, budget reform is not an option. It is an imperative. We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politician, lobbyist, or interest group. We simply cannot afford it.

"This isn't about big government or small government. It's about building a smarter government that focuses on what works. That is why I will ask my team to think anew and act anew to meet our new challenges. We will go through our federal budget -- page by page, line by line -- eliminating those programs we don't need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way."

Given that the times call for increased government spending, what is Obama planning to cut? He offered an example: "There's a report today that from 2003 to 2006, millionaire farmers received $49 million in crop subsidies even though they were earning more than the $2.5 million cutoff for such subsidies. If this is true, it is a prime example of the kind of waste I intend to end as President."

Responding to some questions from reporters, Obama added that he'd earned "a mandate to move the country in a new direction and not continue the same old practices that have gotten us into the fix we are in." He added, however, that "we enter into the administration with a sense of humility and a recognition that wisdom is not the monopoly of any political party."

Sounding another pragmatic note, Obama also said, "I think what the American people want more than anything is just commonsense, smart government. They don't want ideology, they don't want bickering."

And if an ambitious, progressive policy agenda just happens to look like commonsense, smart, non-ideological government, so be it.

SIMON GETS AN EARFUL.... The Politico's Roger Simon apparently dined with a Republican U.S. senator recently, who gave him an earful about what ails the GOP.

The old labels that the Republicans used to hang on the Democrats did not stick.

"The Democrats talked about middle-class tax cuts! They weren't the party of the poor anymore! They weren't the party of gun control anymore! What did Republicans want? Tax cuts for the rich! And small government," he says.

Small government -- the mantra of the Republican Party ever since Ronald Reagan -- will not work anymore, the senator says.

"We can't revive the ghost of Ronald Reagan," he says. "People want government in times of need."

The Mystery Senator also believes the party needs "someone who speaks from the center," adding, "Sarah Palin is not the voice of our party."

Responding to the piece, Atrios noted, "I appreciate why reporters grant certain people anonymity, but sitting US Senators?"

Quite right. What's the point of making all of these quotes not-for-attribution? If this guy wants to get this message out, he should have the nerve to say so on the record.

It's mildly reassuring to know, I suppose, that there's a sitting Republican senator who believes these things, so to that extent, I at least found Simon's piece interesting. But candid assessments of a troubled party from a member of Congress need not be anonymous.

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* After two campaign cycles as chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, New York's Chuck Schumer is stepping down. How much credit Schumer deserves is open to some question, but Democrats gained at least 13 seats during his tenure.

* Sen. Bob Menendez (D) of New Jersey will replace Schumer at the DSCC. Menendez served as the vice chair of the committee for the last two years.

* A few new polls have been released on the Senate runoff race in Georgia. A new Politico/InsiderAdvantage poll shows Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R) leading Jim Martin (D) by three (50% to 47%), while Public Policy Polling shows Chambliss up by six (52% to 46%), and a Mellman Group poll taken for the DSCC shows Chambliss' lead at two (48% to 46%).

* Speaking of the race in Georgia, Rudy Giuliani will campaign in support of Chambliss today, and Sarah Palin will speak at four rallies in Georgia on Monday.

* In case you thought the recount in Minnesota's Senate race couldn't get messier, consider the question of missing ballots.

THE 'RIGHROOTS'.... The Washington Post ran an interesting, 2,300-word item today on conservative blogs and their future within (alongside?) the Republican Party. As far as leading conservative activists -- online and off -- are concerned, the right is far behind the left when it comes to online presence, and there's apparently a renewed push to do something about it.

As that process begins in earnest, I'd encourage them to consider this fine post from Outside the Beltway's James Joyner. He argued the other day that, despite his conservative beliefs, he finds "most of the best analytical blogs are on the center-left," and fleshed out his reasoning yesterday.

Part of the reason I'm drawn to the center-left blogs, including those cited above, Kevin Drum, Steve Benen, and others despite disagreeing with them while finding it increasingly difficult to find center-right blogs worth my time is that the former are much more likely to get beyond the debates of the 1980 election. There's almost no serious analysis of health care reform, urban planning, education, and many other issues that regularly crop up on the best lefty blogs on their conservative counterparts. If we read about those issues at all, they're framed as if Ronald Reagan were still aspiring to high office: Say No to socialism! Abolish the Department of Education! Government IS the problem!

While traditionalist grand theory is still valuable and worth discussion, it doesn't work as a blanket response to micro-level issues. And defining conservatism solely by "What would Reagan do?" is a political non-starter in a world that simply looks much different than in did twenty-eight years ago. It would be as if Reagan constantly droned on about the evils of Harry Truman. Time marches on. Debates must, too, in order to be interesting.

So, where are the right-of-center counterparts to Yglesias, Klein, and company?

I've long wondered the same thing. For more than two years, I was the editor for Salon' "Blog Report," featuring posts from the left and right. It led me to read dozens of conservative blogs every day, and I quickly realized that when it came to depth and seriousness of thought, the two sides weren't close. (James Joyner, who is both thoughtful and knowledgeable, is a noticeable exception.)

Indeed, to help drive the point home, earlier this year, Erick Erickson, RedState's editor, acknowledged that the "netroots" have an advantage over the "rightroots," but attributed it to an asymmetry in free time, since conservatives "have families because we don't abort our kids, and we have jobs because we believe in capitalism."

This is largely the kind of thinking that dominates on conservative blogs. They can't quite get to policy disputes or serious analysis, because they're too busy mulling over the implications of liberals joining forces with Islamofascists, the United Nations, and Mexican immigrants to execute some kind of nefarious plot.

Worse, Kevin noted that when these blogs do consider key policies, such as global warming and growing income inequality, they tend to believe the problems don't exist.

"Global warming and skyrocketing income inequality are problems that didn't even exist in 1980, which means there is no 'Reaganite' solution to appeal to," Kevin concluded. "There might still be conservative takes on these things, but they won't do any good until conservatives actually accept that these are real problems that people genuinely care about. That day still seems pretty far off."

Republican Party leaders are anxious to take advantage of conservative blogs' dynamism as part of the rehabilitation of the GOP. Maybe these folks should crawl before they walk?

ALBERTO'S LEGAL BILLS.... As has been well documented, "loyal Bushies" in the Justice Department engaged in systematic discrimination against those they perceived as possible liberals. As part of this record, eight people who were turned down for the Department's Honor Program and Summer Law Intern Program believe ideology drove the decision-making process, and have filed a lawsuit.

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is, not surprisingly, a key part of the case, and has hired private counsel to represent him. As it turns out, according to a McClatchy report, the Justice Department -- and by extension, taxpayers -- are paying $24,000 a month for Gonzales' defense. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) yesterday asked Michael Mukasey to describe the expenditures, and explain why the spending has been hidden from public view.

It's a good question. The New York Times had a good editorial on this a few days ago.

We have long wanted Mr. Gonzales to be held accountable for his disastrous tenure as attorney general. His prosecutors brought a series of cases that helped Republicans win elections and hurt Democrats. They put Georgia Thompson, a Wisconsin civil servant, in jail on spurious charges for four months after she refused to implicate her state's Democratic governor in a baseless corruption investigation.

Still, Mr. Gonzales is entitled to appropriate legal representation. According to Stephen Gillers, a New York University Law School ethics expert, there are legitimate reasons the government may want him to have a private lawyer. As the case proceeds, for example, Mr. Gonzales and the government might want to stake out different positions on the law or facts of the case.

That does not absolve the department of its obligation to let the public know whether it is paying for a private lawyer, and if so, why it is making these unusual accommodations. It also should let taxpayers know how much they can expect to spend on the former attorney general's defense.

It's hardly an unreasonable request. It's bad enough Americans are paying for Gonzales' attorneys; to do it in secret adds insult to injury.

LEADING NEVADA REPUBLICAN TO BE INDICTED.... For most of the last two years, the most embarrassing political scandals in Nevada have revolved around beleaguered Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons, whose personal and professional life have been a bit of a mess.

The good news is, the latest political scandal has nothing to do with Nevada's Republican governor -- this time, it's Nevada's Republican lieutenant governor.

The lieutenant governor of Nevada says the state attorney general's office intends to have him indicted over how he handled a college savings program as state treasurer.

Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki said Monday he believes he is being targeted for political reasons by state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. [...]

The 47-year-old Krolicki says Chief Deputy Attorney General Conrad Hafen alerted him to a pending indictment by the Clark County grand jury.

A 2007 audit says budget controls were bypassed in the Nevada College Savings Program. Krolicki says auditors were "simply wrong."

Krolicki also told the AP that he is "wholly innocent," and believes the state's attorney general, who is a Democrat, is targeting him for partisan reasons.

Nevertheless, Krolicki has made no secret of his intention to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) in 2010, and has been expected to enjoy the support of the Republican establishment in Nevada and D.C. Facing criminal charges may put a crimp in those plans.

REPLACING BIDEN.... Barack Obama formally resigned his Senate seat about a week ago, which made sense given his transition to the White House. Joe Biden, however, decided not to resign at the same time, and it was unclear what was causing the delay.

ABC News' Rick Klein had a report recently noting that Biden was prepared to formally give up his seat literally the day of his inauguration, after Delaware's incoming governor, Jack Markell, is sworn in shortly after midnight. This, despite the fact that Delaware's current governor, Ruth Ann Minner, is a Democrat, who would no doubt pick a Democrat to fill Biden's seat. Did Biden work out some kind of deal with Merkell? Possibly involving Biden's son? The situation was starting to look a little sketchy.

With this in mind, yesterday's announcement about Biden's replacement seems like the right call.

Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner (D) announced yesterday that she will appoint Edward E. "Ted" Kaufman, a friend and former aide to Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., to fill the Senate seat Biden will vacate until a special election can be held in two years.

Kaufman, the president of Public Strategies, a political and management consulting firm in Wilmington and a lecturer at Duke University's law school, met Biden in the early 1970s, when Biden was a long-shot Senate candidate and Kaufman was a local party operative. Sources close to Biden said Kaufman will act as a place holder until Biden's son, Delaware Attorney General Joseph R. "Beau" Biden III, returns from a National Guard tour in Iraq and can run for the remaining four years of his father's term in a 2010 special election.

"There are no illusions here," said one individual familiar with the appointment.

Perhaps not, but if one is going to rig the system with nepotism in mind, this is arguably the least offensive way to do it. Joe Biden was, just this month, re-elected to a seventh term. Real nepotism would be handing Biden's seat over to his son now, but by having a place-holder senator, who understands the chamber and will vote as Biden would have, voters will be able to choose Biden's replacement at the ballot box in 2010. That's likely to be Beau Biden, but he would at least have to earn it through public support, rather than inherit the seat directly through gubernatorial appointment.

As for Kaufman, the soon-to-be temporary appointed senator said yesterday he wanted "to make clear that I am very comfortable with retiring after two years." He added, "I don't think Delaware's appointed senator should spend the next two years running for office."

FIXING FEMA.... Before George W. Bush took office, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was a model of efficiency and effectiveness. For reasons that have never made any sense, the president decided to undermine the agency, strip its leadership of cabinet-level status, and stick it with unqualified leadership.

FEMA went from being one of the more impressive federal agencies to a national joke. There was some talk a couple of years ago of Congress scraping the agency altogether and starting over.

The Washington Post reports today that the beleaguered emergency-management department is poised to get "a facelift under the Obama administration."

First off, the likely plan is to break off the agency from the Department of Homeland Security, a move that by itself would help restore the pride that folks at FEMA felt when it was an independent agency.

Second, there's increasing talk that former director James Lee Witt, who took over the then-troubled agency at the start of the Clinton administration and left it eight years later with a much-enhanced reputation, is coming back from retirement to run FEMA for six months to a year, to whip it into shape.

Now, there's some question as to whether Witt's disaster recovery firm overbilled Louisiana as part of its post-Katrina work, which would no doubt be explored in detail during confirmation hearings.

What's beyond question, however, is that an overhaul of FEMA under Obama would be most welcome. A "Human Capital Survey" of federal employees in 2002 found that FEMA ranked dead last -- a key warning, before Hurricane Katrina, that there was a real problem at the agency. Now, of course, FEMA is under the Department of Homeland Security, but in the most recent survey of federal employees, FEMA ranks 211th out of 222 in departmental subunits.

Making the FEMA director cabinet-level again would be a good first step. Giving it real leadership and functionality wouldn't hurt, either.

THE RIGHT'S MOVEON NEARLY 'KAPUT'.... Talk about your on-again, off-again operations. Freedom's Watch, the far-right political group, has, at various times, been the Next Big Thing in conservative politics, and a vacuous paper tiger that can't figure what to do with itself. In fact, it's bounced back and forth between these points more than once.

When Freedom's Watch burst upon the political scene in August 2007, it was part of a coordinated effort to rally support for staying the course in Iraq. The group unveiled four slick TV ads, including one featuring a veteran who lost a leg in Iraq who argued that we have to stay in Iraq because "they attacked us." There were reports earlier this year that Freedom's Watch was prepared to amass a quarter-billion dollar budget for the 2008 campaigns, and politicos everywhere thought the outfit was on its way to becoming a powerhouse.

Then, the right-wing group was beset by internal problems, a lack of direction, a serious staff shake-up, and the departure of high-profile staffers, including the group's inaugural president, former Bush aide Bradley Blakeman. Complicating matters, the financial crisis reportedly took a considerable toll on casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, the financier bankrolling the group's operations.

And now, it appears that Freedom's Watch is just about finished.

Freedom's Watch, the conservative group backed by Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman Sheldon Adelson, is pretty much kaput, sources with knowledge of the organization said.

The group's dozens of staffers have been paid through the end of the year. After that, Freedom's Watch is likely to shut its doors permanently, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Two quick observations. First, this has to be considered one of the more humiliating fiascos in recent history for the conservative movement. Freedom's Watch was sitting pretty -- huge budgets, unmatched connections, a far-right void just waiting to be filled -- and it all fell apart very quickly, and with precious little to show for their efforts.

And second, when Freedom's Watch was first announced, it was billed by conservatives as the right's version of MoveOn.org. It's worth remembering that the right has always been confused about how MoveOn became a success. Conservatives too often think, "We'll get some money together, deliver a right-wing message, hire some Bush hands, and the grassroots will come together. It'll be awesome."

It doesn't work that way. MoveOn doesn't follow a top-down model; it's the other way around. MoveOn drew support because it had a cause (Clinton impeachment). It showed staying power when new causes emerged, and there was a genuine demand for progressive activism.

This wasn't an instance in which a bunch of liberals got together and said, "Wouldn't it be great to form some kind of organization to advance a liberal agenda?" It was a far more natural evolution, a fact that seems to elude those who wish to emulate it.

TECHNOLOGY AND COLLEGE COSTS.... When education policy would come up during the presidential campaign, the candidates didn't usually turn their attention to No Child Left Behind of pre-kindergarten, they tended to talk about the ever-rising costs of a college education.

That wasn't surprising, given the enormous burdens families take on to pay tuition costs. Even when state and federal governments pour new resources into student aid programs, the effects are limited as universities keep increasing costs.

In the soon-to-be-published December issue of the Washington Monthly, Kevin Carey, the research and policy manager of Education Sector, an independent think tank in Washington, has a fascinating piece on the apparent contradiction between technology driving down teaching costs, and tuition bills soaring.

For years colleges have insisted that rapidly rising prices are unavoidable because higher education is a labor-intensive business that cannot become more efficient. A forty-minute lecture takes just as long to deliver today as it did a hundred years ago, they say; a ten-page paper takes just as long to grade. Because efficiencies in other industries are driving up the overall cost of skilled labor, colleges have to offer salaries to match, which pushes productivity down. (Economists call this "Baumol's cost disease," after the New York University economist who first made the diagnosis.) Regrettable for students, of course, but what can be done?

In fact, this premise is false. Colleges are perfectly capable of becoming more efficient and productive, in the same way that countless other industries have: through technology. And increasingly, they are. One of the untold stories in higher education is that the cost of teaching is starting to decline, but virtually none of those savings are being passed along to students and parents in the form of lower prices. Instead, colleges are pocketing the difference, even as they continue to jack up tuition bills.

This is a classic unsustainable trend. Higher education prices cannot grow faster than inflation and family income forever. If colleges use productivity gains from technology to restrain prices, they'll continue to thrive in a world that values their product more than ever. If they don't, they'll be hammered simultaneously by a frustrated public and new competitors eager to steal their customers. To avoid that fate, colleges will need to do more than just teach better for less. They'll also need to compete in a whole new way.

And what might that include? Read the piece.

What's more, readers in the Washington area may be interested in an upcoming event, hosted by Education Sector, focused on this very issue. The panel will be moderated by Inside Higher Ed editor Scott Jaschik, and will feature, among others, Carey and the Monthly's editor in chief, Paul Glastris. The event begins at 9 a.m., on Tuesday, December 2. Here's a link to the details.

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The Dow finished up nearly 400 points today. This, combined with Friday's gains, mark the Dow's biggest two-day percentage gain since October 1987.

* Home prices plunged in October.

* Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.), one of Congress' most offensive members, was declared the loser of his competitive House race today. He's demanding a recount.

* I'm not sure if there's any real point to polling voters on Obama's transition, but for what it's worth, 67% approve of the president-elect's efforts thus far.

* Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) will not be the next Secretary of Agriculture.

* Wal-Mart fired Jim Hirni, its top in-house Republican lobbyist, for his ties to the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal.

* I really didn't think Dick Morris could get any lower. I stand corrected.

* GM's CEO got the message about traveling to Washington in a private jet.

* A good piece on EFCA from John Blevins.

* Some of the major daily newspapers found a way to make a whole lot of quick, easy money: sell Obama-related stuff.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

SUSAN RICE TO THE U.N.?.... I'd hoped Susan Rice would have a prominent role in the Obama White House, but I'm also quite confident that she would represent the nation well at the United Nations.

ABC News has learned that Dr. Susan Rice has emerged as the leading candidate to be President-elect Obama's nominee as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Neither Dr. Rice nor the Obama Transition Team had any comment. The usual caveats apply -- nothing is yet a done deal, nothing has been officially offered or accepted, national security team announcements will not come until after Thanksgiving.

Dr. Rice, a member of President Bill Clinton's National Security Council and a former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, was involved in President-elect Obama's campaign as a senior foreign policy adviser.

The former Rhodes Scholar in 2000 received the National Security Council's Samuel Nelson Drew Memorial Award for distinguished contributions to the formation of peaceful, cooperative relationships between nations, and U.S. security policy for global peace.

This is, depending on one's perspective, a good-news/bad-news situation.

The good news is, Susan Rice is brilliant and talented, and will certainly improve our reputation at the U.N. We can use the boost -- America's standing at Turtle Bay has faltered badly under Bush, most notably during John Bolton's tenure. What's more, having a close Obama ally as the ambassador signals to the U.N. a new found respect for the institution's significance. That Rice is an expert on policy towards Africa, and the Security Council spends most of its time addressing issues on the continent, doesn't hurt. Spencer Ackerman noted that Obama would be wise to elevate the U.N. ambassadorship to cabinet-level rank -- as Clinton had done -- which strikes me as a good idea.

So, what's the bad news? If Rice is at the U.N. representing U.S. policy, she isn't in the West Wing or the State Department, shaping U.S. policy.

That said, the U.N. ambassadorship has helped propel the careers of some well-known and well-respected officials. Names such as Adlai Stevenson, George H.W. Bush, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Andrew Young, Madeleine Albright, and Bill Richardson come to mind. They cut their teeth at the U.N. en route to even bigger and better things. Rice will likely do the same.

FILLING THE VACUUM.... Watching Obama's press conference today, I think I noticed three separate instances in which he mentioned having another press conference tomorrow. I had the same question Kevin did: "I'm not sure why Obama wants to have a whole separate rollout for this -- maybe he just wants more than one day's worth of headlines?"

Maybe. I don't think it's an accident that we're watching something akin to a full-court press. On Friday, the transition team intentionally leaked Tim Geithner's name at the next Treasury secretary. On Sunday, members of Obama's team fanned out over the morning shows to talk about a stimulus package. Today, there was the rollout of Obama's economic team. Tomorrow, Obama will host another event, apparently on the federal budget, hopefully alongside incoming OMB Chief Peter Orszag.

So, what's up? I'm guessing this is Obama's way of improving investor confidence and settling the markets before he can take actual policy steps to improve investor confidence and settle the markets. Axelrod acknowledged yesterday that they leaked Geithner's name for the express purpose of giving Wall Street a boost (it worked). Obama introduced his economic team today, and as I'm typing, the Dow is up over 500 points.

Obama keeps reminding us that the nation only has one president at a time, but he's also subtly reminding us that there's a light at the end of this tunnel. McClatchy reported late yesterday:

Whether by design or necessity, Obama appeared to be using the deepening economic crisis to step to the forefront and seize the stage in order to reassure a nervous nation two months before he takes office. [...]

Paul Light, a government professor at New York University's Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, said the rapidly deteriorating economy is forcing Obama to become the nation's Booster-in-Chief before he becomes president.

"The markets are saying that George Bush is irrelevant to the economic future of the country, and they want to hear from Obama," Light said. "Obama doesn't have much choice but to reassure the markets as best he can. The ball is in his court whether he likes it or not."

Rachel Maddow had a very good segment on this on Friday's show, talking about the leadership vacuum that exists -- no one's listening to Bush, who went to Peru over the weekend, and Paulson's credibility is shot -- and Obama is simply stepping to fill the void.

And this, I suspect, is prompting separate roll-outs for all economic-related news.

HANNITY, WITHOUT THE COLMES.... I was tempted to say that all good things must come to an end, but the truth is, the show really isn't my cup of tea. Regardless, Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes" has been a fairly significant media pairing for more than a decade, and it's coming to an end.

Fox News announced that after 12 years, Alan Colmes will be leaving the top-rated "Hannity & Colmes" at the end of the year.

"I approached Bill Shine (FNC's Senior Vice President of Programming) earlier this year about wanting to move on after 12 years to develop new and challenging ways to contribute to the growth of the network," Colmes said in a statement. "Although it's bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, I'm proud that both Sean (Hannity) and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years."

Sean Hannity said Colmes was "a remarkable co-host," "great friend," and "skillful debate partner."

Colmes is leaving the prime-time show, but staying with the network. He'll remain one of Fox News' few liberal commentators, he will continue to host his talk-radio show on Fox News Radio, and Colmes is also reportedly working on a possible on-air weekend program.

As for what happens next on the Fox News program, the network hasn't announced whether the show will simply be Sean Hannity flying solo or whether he'll get a new liberal debating partner.

Either way, I'll be watching Maddow.

ANOTHER SETBACK FOR GOP MINORITY OUTREACH.... Over the weekend, Sophia Nelson, a former congressional staffer and a black Republican, had an op-ed piece lamenting the fact that her party seems wholly disinterested in minority outreach. She acknowledged how difficult it can be to support a party that ignores minority communities altogether.

I thought of Nelson's piece when I saw Greg Sargent's report on Katon Dawson, a leading candidate for the chairmanship of the RNC.

Now here's a good way for the GOP to make the case that it hasn't been reduced to a southern regional rump party that's held hostage by intolerant crackpots: Elect as the new chairman of the Republican National Committee a southerner who just resigned a longtime membership in a whites-only country club.

Katon Dawson, the South Carolina GOP chairman, announced his candidacy for RNC chair yesterday.

And guess what: Back in September, when Dawson was first quietly laying the groundwork for his RNC run, The State newspaper reported that he resigned his membership in the nearly 80-year-old Forest Lake Club. Members told the newspaper at the time that the club's deed has a whites-only restriction and has no black members.

Dawson, upon his recent resignation, said he'd been working to change the club's policy. Given that he was a member for 12 years, he either wasn't working very hard or he wasn't especially effective in his arguments. Whatever the case, Dawson must have been pretty embarrassed, because as soon as his membership was poised to become public, he quickly distanced himself from the country club.

The symbolism in 2009 would be pretty powerful wouldn't it? We could have as chairman of the RNC a former member of a country club that would exclude the president of the United States.

EAVESDROPPING ON BLAIR.... And to think, some of us nervous nellies were concerned that the NSA might abuse its surveillance powers and listen in on communications it shouldn't have.

A former communications intercept operator says U.S. intelligence snooped on the private lives of two of America's most important allies in fighting al Qaeda: British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Iraq's first interim president, Ghazi al-Yawer.

David Murfee Faulk told ABCNews.com he saw and read a file on Blair's "private life" and heard "pillow talk" phone calls of al-Yawer when he worked as an Army Arab linguist assigned to a secret NSA facility at Fort Gordon, Georgia between 2003 and 2007.

Last month, Faulk and another former military intercept operator assigned to the NSA facility triggered calls for an investigation when they revealed U.S. intelligence intercepted the private phone calls of American journalists, aid workers and soldiers stationed in Iraq.

Faulk says his top secret clearance at Ft. Gordon gave him access to an intelligence data base, called "Anchory," where he says he saw the file on then-British prime minister Tony Blair in 2006.

Faulk declined to provide details other than to say it contained information of a personal nature.

Surveillance on foreign heads of state is not especially uncommon, but as Zachary Roth reminds us, "the U.S. and Britain have pledged not to collect information covertly on each other."

What's more, this is the second report in as many months about wiretap abuses -- ABC News also reported in early October that NSA officials had listened in on calls made by U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, American journalists, and American aid workers overseas.

ABC noted today that the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees are already investigating allegations on surveillance abuse. Perhaps it's time to widen the scope of the questions.

OBAMA INTRODUCES HIS ECONOMIC TEAM.... For all the talk we've heard in recent weeks about possible cabinet selections, today was the first and most meaningful announcement to date about the president-elect's team.

President-elect Barack Obama said Monday that the country is facing an "economic crisis of historic proportions," and unveiled the team he has chosen to help get the economy back on track.

Obama said he sought leaders who share his fundamental belief that "we cannot have a thriving Wall Street without a thriving Main Street." [...]

Details of the plan are still being worked out by his economic team, Obama said, but he hopes to sign the two-year, nationwide plan shortly after taking office January 20.

The president-elect said Monday that he has asked his newly formed economic team to develop recommendations for his plan and to consult with Congress, the current administration and the Federal Reserve on immediate economic developments over the next two months.

To that end, Obama announced his selection of Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury; Lawrence Summers as the Director of our National Economic Council; Christina Romer as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors; and Melody Barnes as Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

Geithner and Summers are fairly well established figures and have been slated for these positions since last week, but Romer and Barnes are arguably less well known. Mike Allen and Jackie Calmes had helpful items on Romer's background.

But it's Barnes, moving to the White House by way of the Center for American Progress, who's of particular interest. Yglesias had a good post on Barnes and the Domestic Policy Council.

The DPC is in charge of interagency coordination and policy formation for such topics as education, immigration, criminal justice, and health care -- in short, domestic policy. This hasn't been a very high-profile role under the Bush administration since Bush doesn't really believe in domestic policy aside from tax cuts, but for an administration that's trying to play a constructive role in American life it's a very important job. [...]

Barnes has some of the liberal credentials that people have seen lacking in some other Obama appointments. She served as Chief Counsel to Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2003, was CAP's Executive Vice President for Policy, and then left to join Obama's campaign as policy director.

MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Vote counters in Minnesota took yesterday off. They resumed this morning, with Coleman leading Franken by about 180 votes. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported that, according to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, the recount is about 65% complete, and "anywhere from 30 to 40 counties still have to finish or even start the recount process."

* Nate Silver believes Franken will eke out a narrow, 27-vote win when all is said and done.

* In the Georgia Senate runoff, the Republican National Committee sent cards to GOP voters, which they could in turn send in for absentee ballots. Thousands took advantage of the opportunity, but neglected to sign the cards before sending them to their local county offices.

* Obama is helping Martin out in Georgia, first with a radio ad, and now with a robocall.

* As expected, South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson will seek the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee. He joins Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, though the field is likely to get even bigger.

* Our Country Deserves Better, a far-right political action committee, has released a minute-long ad thanking Sarah Palin for seeking national office. It's more than a little odd.

THEY BEG HIS PARDON.... This ought to be interesting.

With a backlog of applications piled up at the Justice Department, high-profile criminals and their well-connected lawyers increasingly are appealing directly to President Bush for special consideration on pardons and clemency, according to people involved in the process.

Among those seeking presidential action are former junk-bond salesman Michael Milken, who hired former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, one of the nation's most prominent GOP lawyers, to plead his case for a pardon on 1980s-era securities fraud charges. Two politicians convicted of public corruption, former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) and four-term Louisiana governor Edwin W. Edwards (D), are asking Bush to shorten their prison terms.

It remains to be seen how Bush will respond to these requests as his term ends. The president has used his broad pardon powers rarely during seven years in office, granting 157 pardons out of 2,064 petitions, and only six of 7,707 requests for commutations, according to an analysis by former Justice Department lawyer Margaret C. Love.

Aggressive appeals for clemency at the end of an administration are not unusual, but they can raise concerns about influence peddling and fairness, particularly if the president and his legal advisers are not fully transparent, pardon scholars say.

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball recently noted how "stingy" Bush has been on pardons, and highlighted how "tricky" it will be for the president to consider applications regarding members of his own administration -- including Scooter Libby and CIA officers who used Bush-approved "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

ProPublica's Dafna Linzer had a good item the other about what to look out for, breaking down convicts by category and rating the likelihood of presidential clemency on a scale of zero to four "Get of Jail Free" cards. Using Linzer's guide, pay careful attention in the coming weeks to the fate of Texas Border Patrol guards Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, Libby, New England phone-jammer James Tobin, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, and Sen. Ted Stevens.

If Bush family history is any guide, pay particular attention to the president's activities on Christmas Eve.

WHETHER THE CABINET IS BIPARTISAN ENOUGH.... A wide variety of media figures have been quite complimentary about the cabinet team Barack Obama has put together so far. George Stephanopoulos told viewers yesterday, "We have not seen this kind of combination of star power, brain power, and political muscle this early in a cabinet in our lifetimes." NBC's Andrea Mitchell added that Obama's "all-star cabinet" is comprised of the "smartest people he can find."

The Politico's Jonathan Martin seems troubled, though, by the lack of Republicans.

The most likely Republican for a top Obama post, based on published speculation and reporting within his transition team this weekend, is Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who might keep his job in at least the opening phase of the new administration. Obama has said foreign policy is the area most in need of more bipartisanship, and the likely appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) leaves few other openings.

A Gates reappointment would send a message of caution and continuity within national security circles -- not exactly the message that Obama's most ardent anti-Iraq war supporters are yearning for.

But it would hardly signal a dramatically new style of partisan bridge-building. For one, Gates is not a sharply partisan figure. Before becoming president of Texas A&M, he was a lifelong national security official, spending most of his career in the CIA and heading the spy agency under the first President George Bush. For another, he almost certainly would be a transition figure, rather than one expected by the public or colleagues to stay put or be a decisive policymaking voice for a full term.

So, if Obama keeps Bush's Pentagon chief around, it's not really an example of maintaining a bipartisan cabinet, because Gates isn't Republican enough. It would count, the argument goes, but it wouldn't really count.

Dan Bartlett, George W. Bush's former communications director, supports the idea of keeping Gates around, but told Martin, "Choosing one or two token Republicans in lesser Cabinet positions won't pass the smell test."

I'm curious, how many Republicans would Obama need to avoid the appearance of "tokenism"? There are only 15 slots. If "one or two" is insufficient, would one-third of Obama's cabinet have to be made up of Republicans -- in meaningful positions, not "lesser" roles -- to impress his detractors?

Most of time, the "smartest people he can find" may turn out to be Democrats.

THE 'OUTRAGEOUS' CITIGROUP BAILOUT.... Following up on Hilzoy's item from late yesterday, Paul Krugman notes this morning that a Citigroup bailout, under the circumstances, may have been worthwhile, but this bailout is outrageous: "a lousy deal for the taxpayers, no accountability for management, and just to make things perfect, quite possibly inadequate, so that Citi will be back for more. Amazing how much damage the lame ducks can do in the time remaining."

Under the plan, Citigroup and the government have identified a pool of about $306 billion in troubled assets. Citigroup will absorb the first $29 billion in losses in that portfolio. After that, three government agencies -- the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. -- will take on any additional losses, though Citigroup could have to share a small portion of additional losses.

The plan would essentially put the government in the position of insuring a slice of Citigroup's balance sheet. That means taxpayers will be on the hook if Citigroup's massive portfolios of mortgage, credit cards, commercial real-estate and big corporate loans continue to sour.

In exchange for that protection, Citigroup will give the government warrants to buy shares in the company.

In addition, the Treasury Department also will inject $20 billion of fresh capital into Citigroup.

The mismanaged company is worth $20.5 billion. It's already received $25 billion from the TARP rescue plan, and the Treasury is poised to inject another $20 billion, on top of generous asset guarantees.

Drum and Yglesias seem to be asking all the right questions.

THE NEW DEAL.... A few days ago, Tyler Cowen had an op-ed piece in the New York Times questioning the efficacy of FDR's New Deal policies in addressing the Great Depression. The Heritage Foundation also recently went after the New Deal.

Yesterday, on ABC, George Will summarized the conservative line nicely: "Before we go into a new New Deal, can we just acknowledge that the first New Deal didn't work?"

Actually, no, we can't. Paul Krugman explained reality a few weeks ago, but since some political observers seem to have missed his piece, it's worth reemphasizing.

The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans. That said, F.D.R. did not, in fact, manage to engineer a full economic recovery during his first two terms. This failure is often cited as evidence against Keynesian economics, which says that increased public spending can get a stalled economy moving. But the definitive study of fiscal policy in the '30s, by the M.I.T. economist E. Cary Brown, reached a very different conclusion: fiscal stimulus was unsuccessful "not because it does not work, but because it was not tried."

This may seem hard to believe. The New Deal famously placed millions of Americans on the public payroll via the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. To this day we drive on W.P.A.-built roads and send our children to W.P.A.-built schools. Didn't all these public works amount to a major fiscal stimulus?

Well, it wasn't as major as you might think. The effects of federal public works spending were largely offset by other factors, notably a large tax increase, enacted by Herbert Hoover, whose full effects weren't felt until his successor took office. Also, expansionary policy at the federal level was undercut by spending cuts and tax increases at the state and local level.

And F.D.R. wasn't just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion -- he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections.

What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy's needs.

This may be difficult for some to wrap their heads around, but FDR's New Deal was less effective when it was too conservative. The lesson to be learned, then, is to be bolder and deliver a more expansive recovery through a more aggressive stimulus.

WHAT IS JOHN BOEHNER TALKING ABOUT?.... In a time of severe economic crisis, it's important that all of us -- voters, policy makers, investors -- remember to do two key things. First, keep a cool head and avoid panic. Second, pay absolutely no attention to congressional Republicans, who have no idea what they're talking about.

Republicans quickly criticized the idea of such a vast [stimulus] initiative, saying Congress should instead cut taxes to spur economic growth.

"Democrats can't seem to stop trying to outbid each other -- with the taxpayers' money," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "We're in tough economic times. Folks are hurting. But the American people know that more Washington spending isn't the answer."

I realize that Boehner and congressional Republicans don't want to deliberately hurt the country, so perhaps it's best if they take this opportunity to enjoy a little quiet time.

Fortunately, Democrats apparently seem to both appreciate the seriousness of the situation and the necessary remedy. While Barack Obama, during the campaign, had talked about a $175 billion stimulus program, we're now looking at a package that may be four time as big. Austan Goolsbee, a senior economic advisor to Obama, told CBS News yesterday, "This is as big of an economic crisis as we've faced in 75 years. And we've got to do something that's up to the task of confronting that. I don't know what the exact number is, but it's going to be a big number."

How big? Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told George Stephanopoulos yesterday that the stimulus should be between $500 billion and $700 billion. "It's a little like having a new New Deal, but you have to do it before the Depression. Not after," Schumer added.

Note to policy makers: aim high. "The 1930s recession became the Great Depression because policymakers didn't take the necessary actions. Nobody wants to make that mistake this time around," Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, said. "Is there a possibility that we could overshoot? Of course. But from what I've seen, the danger is not doing enough."

As for the implementation, ABC News' Jake Tapper reports that Obama's transition team would like to see the stimulus package pass Congress and in the Oval Office literally the day of the inauguration. There are lingering concerns, though, that a Republican filibuster may scuttle the plan.

It's only the future of the American economy at stake. That's hardly a reason to put GOP obstructionism on hold.

LAST SECRETS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.... It's hardly a secret that the Bush White House has an inordinate fondness for, well, secrecy. When it comes to what the president, the vice president, and their industrious teams have been up to, images of man-sized safes, shredders, and new and creative classified designations cooked up by Dick Cheney's lawyers keep coming to mind.

Getting a sense of what the nation doesn't know about the Bush administration's secrets is not only daunting, it's hard to know where to start. In the soon-to-be-published December issue of the Washington Monthly, editor Charles Homans has a must-read cover story: "Last Secrets of the Bush Administration: How to find out what we still don't know."

The thought of revisiting this history after living through it for eight years is exhausting, and both President Barack Obama and Congress will have every political reason to just move on. But we can't -- it's too important. Fortunately, an accounting of the Bush years is a less daunting prospect than it seems from the outset. If the new president and leaders on Capitol Hill act shrewdly, they can pull it off while successfully navigating the political realities and expectations they now face. A few key actions will take us much of the distance between what we know and what we need to know.

That these "few key actions" seem necessary is an understatement. Homans' prescription -- treat the Naval Observatory like a crime scene; quickly declassify the Bush administration's deliberations and policy implementations (especially from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel); and use commissions instead of subpoenas -- offers a realistic blueprint to policy makers on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Take a look.

Better yet, after you've taken a look, check out TPM Cafe this week, where the Homans article will be the subject of some great discussion.

LIEBERMAN'S 'REGRET'.... Before Senate Democrats decided not to punish Joe Lieberman for his betrayals, there was some talk, most notably from Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), that the Connecticut independent would have to "apologize" for his behavior during the campaign. We heard Lieberman talk about "regret" earlier this week, but words like "sorry" and "apology" have been noticeably absent.

Tom Brokaw brought up this point with Lieberman on "Meet the Press" this morning, and Lieberman continued to be evasive about his repentance. He twice referenced remarks made in the "heat of the campaign," for which he feels "regret." Brokaw noted, "I hear the word regret, but not the word apologize." Lieberman responded that he's "going forward," adding, "You can take from the word "regret" what you will. I wish I had not said some of the things I've said. But again, we all do it."

In the same interview, Brokaw asked which campaign remarks he regretted most, Lieberman said, "I don't want to go into the details."

I can't imagine why not.

A MESS AT JUSTICE.... Dahlia Lithwick has a new piece exploring the mess Eric Holder is walking into as the next Attorney General. In the process, she summarizes the extent to which the "loyal Bushies" who've run the Justice Department over the last eight years have just trashed the place.

What Holder stands to inherit from Michael Mukasey and his predecessor Alberto Gonzales is not a Justice Department that was slightly confused about where the law began and politics ended. If confirmed, he will take over an institution where, at least in recent years, politics sometimes had no end. The department became fodder for late-night TV monologues in 2007 when former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his staff flimflammed their way through congressional hearings about the partisan firings of eight U.S. attorneys. Those independent prosecutors were let go for failing to be -- in the parlance of Gonzales' underage underlings -- "loyal Bushies." More than a dozen officials resigned in the wake of that scandal.

Things at Justice worsened with internal reports finding the department had hired career civil servants, law student interns, assistant U.S. attorneys, and even immigration judges based on their loyalty to the GOP. Secret memos produced by the department's Office of Legal Counsel authorized brutal interrogation techniques and warrantless government eavesdropping. The subordination of law enforcement to politics led to the flight of career attorneys in the department's Civil Rights Division and especially the Voting Section, where by 2007 reportedly between 55 percent to 60 percent had transferred or left the DoJ.

If the rot at Justice could have been cured by simply replacing Gonzales, the appointment of Michael Mukasey, a respected retired federal judge in 2007, might have been enough. It wasn't. To be sure, Mukasey said noble things about the evils of torture and made moves toward disentangling the department from the White House. But more often than not, Mukasey declined to lance the boil. He refused to call water-boarding torture. He insisted no crimes were committed when department officials violated civil service laws. And he criticized those seeking accountability for the architects of the administration's torture policy as "relentless," "hostile," and "unforgiving." Mukasey collapsed while giving a speech this past week, but thankfully the incident seems not to have been serious.

It's fair to say there isn't a single cabinet agency that's better now than when Bush took office -- better managed, better organized, more efficient, more competent -- but to see what the Bush gang has done to the Justice Department is practically a crime in and of itself.

In isolation, each of the controversies Lithwick mentions was an embarrassing scandal. Taken together, it's almost as if Bush and his team were trying to destroy the department.

Given what we know of Holder, he seems to have exactly the right skills and background to make the Justice Department function again. But before his clean-up work begins, let's pause to appreciate just what a fiasco the masters of disasters created here.

CHEAP SHOTS IN GEORGIA.... The polls must be pretty close in Georgia's runoff election for the U.S. Senate, because the right, true to form, is aiming pretty low.

Over the last few days, both the National Republican Senatorial Committee and a far-right group called Freedom's Watch have both launched ads attacking Democrat Jim Martin for being "soft on crime." More specifically, the conservatives insist that Martin has opposed measures that would crack down on criminals who prey on children.

Of all the issues Republicans could have picked, this has to be the most offensive -- Martin's daughter was kidnapped when she was just eight years old. She was, fortunately, returned to the family safely, but Martin has a more personal background when it comes to crimes against children than most of us would even care to imagine.

With that in mind, the Martin campaign released this ad and a fact-sheet documenting Martin's extensive record on penalties for criminals and protections for children.

One wonders if, perhaps, the right-wing attacks on this go a little too far, and might backfire, just as the Liddy Dole "godless" ad had the opposite of the desired effect in North Carolina earlier this month.

Then again, there is a track record to consider. Saxby Chambliss won a first term with an offensive ad smearing Max Cleland on national security; perhaps he'll win a second term thanks to a couple of offensive ads about crime.

DOLLHOUSE.... It's a pretty slow news day so far, so forgive me for straying from the usual political coverage.

As you've probably noticed, plenty of political bloggers occasionally tackle unrelated subjects. Yglesias writes about basketball; Ezra writes about cooking; Drum writes about cats, football, and his unusual computer problems.

And what do I do when I'm not obsessing over the political news of the day? I'm obsessing over the science fiction news of the day (TV, movies, comics, video games, you name it). With that in mind, John Cole had an item last night about "Dollhouse," a Joss Whedon show set to debut as a mid-season replacement.

Set for February 13, 2009, and I am hoping this is as good as Whedon's other efforts. So help me, if Fox does to Dollhouse what they did to Firefly, I will come after someone.

John, get ready to go after someone.

First, Fox made Whedon scrap the pilot (just as the network did with "Firefly," probably my favorite show of all time). Then, after several episodes had already been shot, Whedon stopped production because the scripts were deemed inadequate. And just to ruin any hopes we had about the show's future, Fox announced earlier this month that "Dollhouse" would air on Friday nights at 9 -- the same slot it gave "Firefly," and a notorious black hole on the schedule where the network dumps shows it doesn't intend to keep.

I'm an embarrassingly big fan of Whedon's work, so months before the first episode even airs, I'm already preparing myself to be disappointed -- not with the show, but with its likely demise.

For what it's worth, Fox is pairing "Dollhouse" with the "Sarah Connor Chronicles," setting up something of Sci-Fi Friday lineup, which presumably could bolster both (they appeal to similar audiences). I'm still not optimistic.

OBAMA TO CREATE COMMISSION ON TORTURE?.... The AP reported this week that the Obama administration is "unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists during the George W. Bush presidency." This was discouraging news, to be sure, though as Hilzoy noted, Obama -- for his sake and the sake of possible prosecutions -- needs to steer clear of what might be perceived as a "partisan witch hunt."

With that in mind, Newsweek reports that Obama aides are considering a 9/11-style commission that would examine Bush administration policies, and "make public as many details as possible."

"At a minimum, the American people have to be able to see and judge what happened," said one senior adviser, who asked not to be identified talking about policy matters. The commission would be empowered to order the U.S. intelligence agencies to open their files for review and question senior officials who approved "waterboarding" and other controversial practices.

Obama aides are wary of taking any steps that would smack of political retribution. That's one reason they are reluctant to see high-profile investigations by the Democratic-controlled Congress or to greenlight a broad Justice inquiry (absent specific new evidence of wrongdoing). "If there was any effort to have war-crimes prosecutions of the Bush administration, you'd instantly destroy whatever hopes you have of bipartisanship," said Robert Litt, a former Justice criminal division chief during the Clinton administration. A new commission, on the other hand, could emulate the bipartisan tone set by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton in investigating the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 panel was created by Congress. An alternative model, floated by human-rights lawyer Scott Horton, would be a presidential commission similar to the one appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975 and headed by Nelson Rockefeller that investigated cold-war abuses by the CIA.

The idea of such panels is not universally favored among Obama advisers. Some with ties to the intelligence community fear the demoralizing impact on intelligence officers, said one source who had discussions with Obama aides about the idea. But during the campaign, both Obama and Eric Holder, slated to be nominated as attorney general, sharply criticized the use of torture and the legal rulings that permitted them. Holder called some Bush counterterror policies "excessive and unlawful."

A commission approach would, at a minimum, identify criminal conduct conducted in the name of Bush counter-terrorism policies, and would diffuse charges about "partisan witch hunts." Panelists would get the truth, and report it.

What prosecutors might do with such information is still unclear.

THE CABINET.... Barack Obama's cabinet will have the heads of 15 executive agencies (Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.) It will also likely feature at least three cabinet-level officers (EPA administrator, OMB director, and U.S. Trade Representative).

This week, we started to get a sense of what Obama's team is going to look like, but only a sense. To date, the transition team has formally announced the name of exactly zero members. That said, we can probably safely predict, given what's been widely reported, the names of five of the 15 cabinet secretaries -- Daschle at HHS, Napolitano at DHS, Holder at Justice, Clinton at State, and Geithner at Treasury. We can also say with some certainty that Orszag is headed to OMB. Gates seems like a likely pick at the Pentagon, and the odds look pretty good for Richardson at Commerce, but that still leaves eight cabinet vacant slots and two vacant cabinet-level slots.

What can we conclude about what we know so far? It's a question open to some interpretation.

Hilzoy mentioned last night she's "quite impressed" with how the cabinet is shaping up, adding that the team features "some very, very impressive people," and noting that it's reassuring to "have a grownup in charge." I agree with all of this wholeheartedly. The team, at this point, features nothing but capable, competent, and experienced officials. They will, without a doubt, serve the nation well.

There are, however, political considerations. Chris Bowers expressed his frustration with the lack of ideological balance.

Even after two landslide elections in a row, are our only governing options as a nation either all right-wing Republicans, or a centrist mixture of Democrats and Republicans? Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration? Also, why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left? It seems to me as though there is a team of rivals, except for the left, which is left off the team entirely.

Chris Hayes added, "Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one."

I'm probably not quite as frustrated as Bowers and Hayes, at least not yet, but their point is well taken. Democrats are in ascendance. It's a center-left nation, arguably for the first in many years. Obama is the most progressive president in at least a generation. A cabinet of centrist Democrats and a sane Republican or two seems wholly incomplete.

So why aren't I more frustrated? Several reasons, actually.

First, even with the near-certain names that have been leaked, I don't have the foggiest idea who'll fill more than half of Obama's cabinet. I'm inclined to wait and see. We'll have a much better sense of the rest of the team soon enough.

Second, cabinet secretaries won't be the only ones with access to Obama's ear, and some of the top aides in the White House -- Gaspard, Rouse, Schiliro, Axelrod -- include some great people I do consider pretty liberal.

Third, I'm not especially surprised by any of the choices thus far. The truth is, Obama campaigned as a pragmatist. He seems to like wonks and technocrats, and has always emphasized competence and results while downplaying ideology. That's who he is; it seems to work for him.

And fourth, my goal is to see Obama push progressive policies; whether he uses progressive people to achieve these goals is important but secondary. Is Tom Daschle a dyed-in-the-wool liberal? Probably not. But if his role at HHS helps make a major healthcare reform initiative more likely -- and I believe it does -- his position on the ideological spectrum is less consequential.

Indeed, in the three weeks since the election, I've seen little evidence that Obama's progressive policy agenda has changed in any meaningful way. He still appears committed to a national healthcare push; he gave a video address on climate change last week that sounded very encouraging; and he spoke just this morning about an economic stimulus effort that includes considerable spending on infrastructure. This doesn't sound like a move to the "center"; it sounds like a set of ambitious, progressive ideas.

Yglesias had a good item on this earlier today:

Putting reassuring faces on an agenda of ambitious policy change strikes me as dramatically preferable to appointing a lot of liberals whose job is to sell the progressive base on the need to trim and abandon campaign commitments. [...]

If universal health care, a clean energy economy, withdrawal of troops from Iraq, an end to torture, and massive new infrastructure investments are a "center-right" agenda because Tim Geithner is Secretary of Treausry then I'll take it. The crux of the matter is to keep pressing for the agenda.

THE CENTER-RIGHT MYTH.... And the Observation of the Day award goes to the estimable David Sirota.

As the graph shows, the use of the exact term "center-right nation" spiked [in the major media] immediately after election day (point "0" is the day my column published, point "1" is election day).

While it's true -- this trend study doesn't tell us how many of the "center-right nation" references are saying this is "not a center-right nation." But a look through Lexis-Nexis shows it's safe to assume that the vast majority of these references are asserting this is a "center-right nation."

So we're not talking about theory anymore -- we're talking about empirical fact. The media has exponentially increased the amount of times it claims that this country is a "center-right nation" -- at the very same time public opinion data shows the country is a decidedly center-left nation.

I feel like Newsweek's cover story the week before the election, insisting in advance of the results that no matter what happens when voters actually express a preference, everyone should remember that it's still a "center-right" country.

Keep in mind, this has proven surprisingly pervasive. We've had Republican officials making the claim at every opportunity, and conservative voices like that of Joe Scarborough and Karl Rove, but we've also seen less predictable figures like Tom Brokaw repeating the same claim, without evidence or support.

They have no reason to believe their lying eyes.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF BUSH BURROWING.... PZ Myers explains this morning, "The Bush administration will leave us with another legacy: unqualified Republican ideologues receiving appointments in various institutions, including scientific organizations, as their ship of state sinks. The rats are scuttling overboard, and are being rewarded with captaincies on any available vessel."

He's referring to this.

The president of the nation's largest general science organization yesterday sharply criticized recent cases of Bush administration political appointees gaining permanent federal jobs with responsibility for making or administering scientific policies, saying the result would be "to leave wreckage behind."

"It's ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure," said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "You'd just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments."

Well, yes, one would like to think that. But we're talking about the Bush gang here.

The specific examples are absurd to the point of parody.

In one recent example, Todd Harding -- a 30-year-old political appointee at the Energy Department -- applied for and won a post this month at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There, he told colleagues in a Nov. 12 e-mail, he will work on "space-based science using satellites for geostationary and meteorological data." Harding earned a bachelor's degree in government from Kentucky's Centre College, where he also chaired the Kentucky Federation of College Republicans.

Also this month, Erik Akers, the congressional relations chief for the Drug Enforcement Administration, gained a permanent post at the agency after being denied a lower-level career appointment late last year.

And in mid-July, Jeffrey T. Salmon, who has a doctorate in world politics and was a speechwriter for Vice President Cheney when he served as defense secretary, had been selected as deputy director for resource management in the Energy Department's Office of Science. In that position, he oversees decisions on its grants and budget.

As if Bush weren't making it difficult enough for Obama to govern effectively, he'll also have to deal with the consequences of widespread "burrowing."

A NEW 'MIDDLE GROUND' ON GAY RIGHTS?.... Michael Medved, a very conservative voice, believes Elton John has "solved" the gay marriage controversy by endorsing civil unions. (via Sullivan)

One of the world's most prominent gay entertainers offered some rare common sense on the explosive issue of same sex marriage. In New York City for a gala AIDS benefit, rock legend Sir Elton John appeared with his long-time partner, David Furnish. "We're not married," he told the press, "Let's get that straight. We have a civil partnership...I don't want to be married! I'm very happy with a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships".

If more people on all sides of this issue embraced the simple, irrefutable logic of this clear-thinking superstar, a vastly divisive, unnecessary controversy could reach a successful and amicable solution.

Now, I happen to think both John and Medved are mistaken, and that there's no reason to deny gay couples the right to get married. In fact, I haven't the foggiest idea what John is talking about.

But it's probably worth noting that, at some point over the last couple of years, civil unions for gay couples stopped being controversial. It's a welcome development. As recently as, say, 2002, the notion that the left and right could agree to support legally-recognized gay partnerships, with all of the rights therein, seemed pretty far-fetched, if not ridiculous.

And yet, here we are. Medved, who probably considered legally-recognized gay unions outrageous a few years ago, now treats the notion of civil partnerships as something of a no-brainer. With nary a complaint, the nation seems to have embraced civil unions as a consensus "middle ground" that even far-right media personalities can endorse.

It doesn't excuse inexplicable setbacks like the vote on California's Prop. 8, but I suppose it's progress.

MOVING UP THE INAUGURATION.... The New York Times' Gail Collins has a good idea in her column this morning: maybe Bush could do us a favor and just wrap things up now.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... If you weren't around last week, I have brought back "This Week in God" as a regular Saturday feature. The weekly piece highlights some of the news from the world of religion, most notably instances in which faith intersected with politics and/or public policy. TWIG was on hiatus during the height of the election season, but by popular demand, it's back.

First up from the God Machine, one of the nation's more notorious religious colleges is owning up, at least on the surface, to its embarrassing history.

Bob Jones University is apologizing for racist policies that included a one-time ban on interracial dating and its unwillingness to admit black students until 1971.

In a statement posted Thursday on its Web site, the fundamentalist Christian school founded in 1927 in northwestern South Carolina says its rules on race were shaped by culture instead of the Bible. [...]

"BJU's history has been chiefly characterized by striving to achieve those goals; but like any human institution, we have failures as well. For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it.

"In so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry. Though no known antagonism toward minorities or expressions of racism on a personal level have ever been tolerated on our campus, we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful."

It's a start. Also from the God Machine this week:

* AP: "The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the state's 'In God We Trust' license plate Monday, rejecting a claim that people who buy the plates should have to pay a $15 administrative fee charged for other specialty plates. In its 12-page ruling, the appeals court found that state lawmakers acted correctly in creating a license plate classification system that exempts people who buy the 'In God We Trust' plate from paying the administrative fee."

* The Living Word Christian Center, a Minnesota megachurch, went to court recently so it wouldn't have to disclose the compensation taken by its founder and pastor, James "Mac" Hammond, to the IRS. This week, a U.S. district magistrate judge's recommendation sided with the church. (thanks to Zeitgeist for the tip)

* The German government announced that is no longer trying to ban Scientology, but added that German intelligence agencies would continue to monitor the group. The announcement ends a decade-long investigation.

ACTING 'SWIFTLY AND BOLDLY'.... Barack Obama's weekly radio/YouTube address was, not surprisingly, focused on the economy, and for those of us anxious to hear about his intentions to help stimulate the economy, the message sounded pretty good.

He didn't go into too much detail -- it's a four-minute clip -- but the president-elect outlined "a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy." This includes investment in "rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels; fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead."

Obama added that this spending will help address the immediate crisis and offer "long-term investments in our economic future that have been ignored for far too long."

He also noted the 1.2 million jobs that have already been lost this year, and insisted that we now have to act "swiftly and boldly." He used the word again towards the end, noting that the "American Dream" has endured because, in "our darkest hours," we have "acted boldly,
bravely, and above all, together."

It'd be awfully nice if the nation didn't have to wait until late January for Obama's stimulus package, but I suppose we don't have a choice.

LONG LIVE THE OFFICE OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS.... There's been a fair amount of talk of late, arguing that Barack Obama should dismantle the White House political office altogether. I understand the point -- political operations should be left to the national parties -- and I can appreciate how destructive the office appears given its disproportionate power in the Bush White House, but I'm glad Obama has resisted the push and will the keep the office in place.

Tim Fernholz had a very good item about this a couple of weeks ago.

The Obama team isn't promoting some goo-goo, Carter-esque vision of the innocent country folk coming to D.C. to end all those bad practices put in place by shady influences. That's a recipe for getting rolled, and no one will see any change come of it. To change things, you need to be able to organize coalitions and move political power. The idea that you can do that without people who understand the way politics works being part of the discussion is kind of laughable. It's the same kind of foolishness you get from folks who decry partisanship simply because they don't like conflict. [...]

It's time for real talk, and that means we can't pretend that politics doesn't have anything to do with policymaking, or that America's politician-in-chief shouldn't have political advisers. It would be nice to live in a world where the president could dismantle the political office and not get eaten alive by his political opponents, but we don't.

With this mind, the Obama transition announced yesterday that the Office of Political Affairs will remain in place, and it will be led by Patrick Gaspard, a longtime labor activist with the SEIU and the national political director for the Obama campaign.

An Obama transition spokeswoman said that keeping the office open does not mean the president-elect will default on his campaign promise to change politics-as-usual in Washington, which as a candidate he dubbed the "perpetual campaign."

"An Obama White House will be focused on meeting the next challenge, not winning the next election," transition spokeswoman Jen Psaki wrote in an email Friday evening. "That is what he promised in the campaign and that is how he will govern."

To my mind, there's nothing especially offensive about having a White House office, as Fernholz put it, "considering the political implications of policy choices." The problem with the office over the last eight years is that the line was blurred out of existence -- the political considerations drove and shaped the policy choices. You had partisan operatives making policy and dictating the White House's direction.

The office will remain, but its use will likely become more sensible.

THE RIGHT, HEALTHCARE, AND POLITICAL SURVIVAL.... Hilzoy had a great overnight item that I wanted to add one observation to.

U.S. News' James Pethokoukis and Cato's Michael Cannon believe that if Obama is successful in passing a national healthcare plan, Americans will not only like it, but will reward Democrats for having passed it. As a result, Pethokoukis and Cannon conclude, conservatives need to block the reform effort, whether it's a good idea or not.

I'd just add that a certain leading conservative sketched out the exact same position 15 years ago. His name is Bill Kristol.

It's largely faded from memory, but I'd argue one of the more important moments in the debate over the Clinton healthcare plan in the early 1990s came when Kristol distributed a memo to congressional Republicans in December 1993.

Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. (emphasis added)

Today, the circumstances are slightly different -- Democrats are in good shape and don't need their reputation "revived" -- but with the Pethokoukis and Cannon analyses in mind, history may repeat itself.

Remember, for Kristol then and Pethokoukis/Cannon now, it's not about the quality of the policy -- it's about political survival. If Democrats deliver, they'll be positioned to win over a generation of voters. Blocking (or "killing") a reform effort may undermine the public's needs, but it would also block Democrats from winning a historic victory.

With that in mind, the right will likely aggressively resist healthcare reform because, as a matter of electoral strategy, conservatives probably don't have a choice.

FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Wall Street loves Tim Geithner.

* Fortunately, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who collapsed last night during a speech to the Federalist Society in Washington, was released from the hospital today and was given "a clean bill of health."

* Clinton aides are still describing reports that she's accepted the Secretary of State job as "premature."

* GM is giving up some of its private jets. Good move.

* The Coleman-Franken race keeps getting closer. The margin is now reportedly in single double digits.

* Joe Scarborough, in the height of media irresponsibility, is raising bogus questions about the legitimacy of the vote in Minnesota.

* Despite what some far-right bloggers may want you to believe, gun owners can and will work in the Obama administration.

* Buried glaciers on Mars? Very cool. (thanks to R.K. for the tip)

* I'm sorry to hear that Salon is cutting its staff.

* The odd indictment against Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales in southern Texas has managed to get a little more unusual, culminating in the local district attorney screaming at the judge in open court.

* Did talk radio kill conservatism? Nate Silver has a fascinating piece on the difference between "stimulating" political discourse and "persuasive" political discourse.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

MEET TIM GEITHNER.... Of the three apparent cabinet moves this afternoon, we know a lot about Hillary Clinton, quite a bit about Bill Richardson, but comparably less about Timothy Geithner. If he's going to be the Secretary of the Treasury in the midst of a historical financial crisis, it's probably worth taking some time to get to know him.

I've read two solid pieces lately on the likely next Treasury Secretary. The first was back in September, when Robert Kuttner wrote a fascinating item on Geithner's background and expertise.

Unlike many senior Treasury and Fed officials, Geithner is not a high roller from a big bank or investment house but a public-minded civil servant. He has neither a doctorate in economics nor an M.B.A. After receiving a master's degree in international economics from Johns Hopkins University, he worked as a research assistant to Henry Kissinger and then joined the Treasury, where he was posted as an assistant attache in Japan. He came to the attention of both Larry Summers and Robert Rubin and quickly moved up the ladder. He was a key player in the containment of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 and later went to the International Monetary Fund as a top official. Despite being a Democrat, he was named president of the New York Fed after two stronger and more conservative candidates withdrew.

Geithner's admirers span the spectrum from Republican financial mogul Pete Peterson to liberal Democrat Barney Frank. One can infer from his broad fan base three possible conclusions: Wall Street is so clubby and politically powerful that permissible policy differences just aren't that great; or maybe Geithner is all things to all people; or perhaps, in a deep crisis, truly talented and effective people can earn broad respect.

Perhaps most importantly, Kuttner noted a speech Geithner delivered to the Economic Club of New York last June, calling for a far-tougher regulatory policy to alter "the level and concentration of risk-taking across the financial system." He got quite specific, saying regulators "need to make it much more difficult for institutions with little capital and little supervision to underwrite mortgages." Reassuringly, Kuttner described the remarks as "a blueprint for fundamental overhaul," which is what's necessary given the need for a new financial architecture.

The other piece was Noam Scheiber's recent article, describing Geithner as "the next Larry Summers," and providing some helpful context to Geithner's professional and ideological background. It's well worth reading.

For what it's worth, investors appeared very pleased with word about Geithner's nomination -- the Dow soared nearly 500 points after MSNBC's report made the rounds.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Geithner will not have any confirmation trouble in the Senate.

STOCKING A CABINET.... A flurry of cabinet news late this Friday afternoon. The New York Times' Peter Baker, for example, reports that the process has ended and Hillary Clinton has agreed to become the next Secretary of State.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of secretary of state, making her the public face around the world for the administration of the man who beat her for the Democratic presidential nomination, two confidants said Friday.

Mrs. Clinton came to her decision after additional discussion with President-elect Barack Obama about the nature of her role and his plans for foreign policy, said one of the confidants, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the situation. [...]

"She's ready," said the confidant. Mrs. Clinton was reassured after talking again with Mr. Obama because their first meeting in Chicago last week "was so general," the confidant said. The purpose of the follow-up talk, he added, was not to extract particular concessions but "just getting comfortable" with the idea of working together.

A second Clinton associate confirmed that her camp believes they have a done deal.

Also, MSNBC is reporting that Tim Geithner, New York Federal Reserve Bank president, will be the next Treasury secretary.

NBC News has learned that the president-elect is preparing to roll out his economic team on Monday -- and will personally announce the team and answer questions -- part of an effort to reassure markets.

Barring last minute changes, the nominee for Treasury Secretary will be NY Fed President Tim Geithner -- a career Treasury official under both Bob Rubin and Larry Summers -- who actually had worked at the Treasury in three administrations under five Secretaries -- going back to 1988.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has emerged as a "serious contender" to head the Commerce Department under President-elect Barack Obama, according to a Democratic official close to the proceedings.

The Albuquerque Journal had a similar report.

PLUSES AND MINUSES.... John Heilemann takes a look at Hillary Clinton's possible role as Secretary of State in the new issue of New York, and highlights some of the key reasons why she'd be a strong choice. "Her existing relationships with world leaders and her global star power would allow her to walk into foreign capitals and deal with the president or prime minister on level footing," Heilemann notes. "And in the face of a cratering economy likely to consume the first year (or more) of Obama's term, handing off the foreign-policy legwork to a savvy, tough, high-profile surrogate with roundly acknowledged expertise on the relevant issues holds no small appeal."

Some of Heilemann's observations overlapped nicely with Steve Clemons' sharp analysis of Clinton's possible role as Secretary of State: "If Obama wants to change the strategic game on Iran, Israel-Palestine, Syria, Cuba, Russia and other challenges, he will need partners who are perceived as tough, smart, shrewd and even skeptical of the deals he wants to do. Clinton is all of these. Clinton may be the bad cop to Obama's good cop. Because she is trusted by Pentagon-hugging national security conservatives, she may legitimize his desire to respond to this pivot point in American history with bold strokes rather than incremental ones."

I find all of this pretty compelling. But then, there's the other hand. Spencer Ackerman has a great piece today on one disconcerting aspect of this dynamic that's gone largely overlooked: "Clinton herself isn't so much the problem, [foreign-policy experts in the Obama orbit] say. It's the loyalists and traditional thinkers Clinton is likely to bring into the State Dept. if she becomes secretary."

The dispute is only partly ideological in nature. While the coterie of foreign-policy thinkers around Obama have been more liberal, in an aggregate sense -- on issues like Iraq and negotiations with America's adversaries -- the Obama loyalists question the boldness of the Clintonites. They fear that Obama's apparent embrace of Clinton represents an acquiescence to the conventional Democratic foreign-policy approaches that they once derided as courting disaster. Some wonder whether a Clinton-run State Dept. will hire progressive Obama partisans after an acrimonious primary.

Clinton, assuming she gets the job, would bring more than her own considerable skills and background to the State Department; she would also be responsible for hiring officials to fill key posts throughout Foggy Bottom. It's very unlikely that Clinton would accept this offer if she would face restrictions from the White House on how -- and with whom -- she could shape her own team.

And that, to my mind, is the most credible cause for some concern with Clinton's nomination. As a presidential candidate, Clinton surrounded herself with some capable people, but they and their vision was largely out of step with Obama's more progressive approach to foreign policy and diplomacy. And it would likely be they, not career officials who backed Obama, who Clinton would bring on to do most of the heavy lifting at the cabinet agency.

A dynamic to keep an eye on, to be sure.

ROADBLOCK REPUBLICANS RETURN.... In the 110th Congress, the Senate Republican minority, with 49 seats, filibustered more legislation than any Senate minority in congressional history. Can the GOP break its own record in the 111th?

We already know that Republicans aren't shy about throwing around the "f" word. Literally just three days after Barack Obama won the presidential campaign, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second highest ranking Republican in the chamber, publicly vowed to filibuster any prospective Supreme Court nominee he deemed to be too liberal.

Today, the highest ranking Republican in the chamber speculated about another two years of filibusters.

A feisty Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Friday that while he looks forward to working with President-elect Barack Obama in the coming months, Republicans will continue to demand that they be given the ability to amend legislation or will filibuster bills as they move through the Senate.

McConnell released a letter signed by the entire GOP Conference to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) calling on him to use a more open process for advancing legislation in the 111th, a clear warning to Reid that Republicans will be looking to stand together over the next two years.

"The 42 Republican Senators represent 157 million Americans. Their voices are entitled to be heard, and the way to be heard in the Senate is an open amendment process," a clearly rejuvenated McConnell told reporters.

Remember when McConnell opposed an open amendment process when Republicans were in the majority? Remember when McConnell used to believe "up or down vote" were the four most important words in the English language?

Good times, good times.

JONES FOR NSA?.... There haven't been too many rumors about who's likely to serve as the National Security Advisor in the Obama White House, so it was interesting to see Gen. James Jones' name come up today.

President-elect Barack Obama is close to landing James L. Jones, the well-known retired Marine Corps general, as his national security adviser, sources said.

Jones is a former Marine Corps commandant and was head of U.S. and NATO forces in Europe, with the title of Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.

The national security adviser heads the National Security Council, the part of the White House structure that deals with foreign policy. It varies in influence from presidency to presidency. Befitting his past, Jones would be given a commanding role, the sources said.

Jones also was considered for secretary of state and secretary of energy. He currently is president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy. From his official biography: "At the request of the U.S. Congress, Jones recently chaired the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq."

The rumor is pretty widespread today -- similar reports about Jones as the NSA have appeared on CNN and ABC. (I'd add, by the way, that MSNBC reported in June that Obama's vice presidential vetting team came up with 20 possible names, and Jones, a close friend of John McCain, made the list as a possible running mate.)

So, assuming the reports are accurate, is Jones the right person for the job? By all indications, yes. Spencer Ackerman notes that Jones would be "a good choice," who would be reflective of two huge Obama priorities. First, Afghanistan. As NATO Commander, Jones ceaselessly lobbied the European allies for greater assistance in the Afghanistan war. Second, energy security. Jones is widely known to be an advocate of alternative energy sources, and, as Politico notes, chairs an energy task force for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And of course there's the good optics of such a well-respected general being Obama's closest White House aide on foreign policy."

Joe Klein added that Jones "refused a series of major positions offered by the Bush Administration, presumably because he opposed the policies he would have been expected to implement. He did agree to study the security situations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the Bush Administration, and came back with reports that were embarrassingly candid. If appointed, he -- not David Petraeus -- will be the most important (former) general in the Obama Administration, which will help tilt power back toward the President."

What's more, Adam Serwer reminds us that Jones is an opponent of torture.

Stay tuned.

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* In Minnesota, Norm Coleman's lead over Al Franken is down to just 136 votes. As of last night, about 46% of the 2.9 million ballots had been counted as part of the statewide recount.

* Barack Obama got directly involved in the Senate runoff election in Georgia yesterday, recording a 60-second radio ad in support of Jim Martin. After thanking voters in the state for their support, Obama says, "The elections aren't over.... I want to urge you to turn out one more time and help elect Jim Martin to the United States Senate."

* Fred Thompson was considering a run for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, but has instead decided to return to his acting career.

* In Florida, McCain beat Obama by almost 5 points among those who voted on Election Day, but Obama beat McCain by 11 points among those voted early or by absentee ballot.

* Hillary Clinton still has about $7.5 million in campaign debt -- including $5.4 million to Mark Penn -- but could push off her debt if she becomes Secretary of State.

AUTOWORKER WAGES.... To help explain the crisis facing the U.S. automotive industry, a growing number of conservatives have begun blaming the Big Three's workers for the companies' financial difficulties. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), for example, recently argued on Fox News, "For years [the companies have] been sick. They have a bad business model. They have contracts negotiated with the United Auto Workers that impose huge costs. The average hourly cost per worker in this country is about $28.48. For these auto makers, it's $73."

Jonathan Cohn explained today that the conservative talking points are "wildly misleading."

Let's start with the fact that it's not $70 per hour in wages. According to Kristin Dziczek of the Center for Automative Research -- who was my primary source for the figures you are about to read -- average wages for workers at Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors were just $28 per hour as of 2007. That works out to a little less than $60,000 a year in gross income -- hardly outrageous, particularly when you consider the physical demands of automobile assembly work and the skills most workers must acquire over the course of their careers. [...]

[T]hen what's the source of that $70 hourly figure? It didn't come out of thin air. Analysts came up with it by including the cost of all employer-provided benefits -- namely, health insurance and pensions -- and then dividing by the number of workers. The result, they found, was that benefits for Big Three cost about $42 per hour, per employee. Add that to the wages -- again, $24 per hour -- and you get the $70 figure. Voila.

Except ... notice something weird about this calculation? It's not as if each active worker is getting health benefits and pensions worth $42 per hour. That would come to nearly twice his or her wages. (Talk about gold-plated coverage!) Instead, each active worker is getting benefits equal only to a fraction of that -- probably around $10 per hour, according to estimates from the International Motor Vehicle Program. The number only gets to $70 an hour if you include the cost of benefits for retirees -- in other words, the cost of benefits for other people. [...]

Make no mistake: The argument over a proposed rescue package is complicated, in no small part because over the years both management and labor made some truly awful decisions while postponing the inevitable reckoning with economic reality. And even if the government does provide money, it's a tough call whether restructuring should proceed with or without a formal bankruptcy filing. Either way, yet more downsizing is inevitable.

But the next time you hear somebody say the unions have to make serious salary and benefit concessions, keep in mind that they already have -- enough to keep the companies competitive, if only they can survive this crisis.

Something to keep in mind as the debate continues on what to do with Detroit.

THEY JUST CAN'T STOP.... Yesterday, we talked about the fact that there's simply no interest at all in bringing the "fairness doctrine" back, and yet, it's become something of an obsession among conservatives. TNR's Marin Cogan had a great piece, highlighting the campaign against a non-existent initiative, and explaining, "The prospect of being in the opposition often brings out the worst in conservatives -- paranoia and self-pity."

Right on cue, Bill O'Reilly devoted two -- count 'em, two -- parts of his Fox News program last night to denouncing the imaginary effort to bring back to the fairness doctrine. Jason Linkins noted the conversation between O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham on the subject, and on the same program, O'Reilly devoted his "talking points" segment to attacking non-existent Democratic efforts to bring the policy back. (As O'Reilly explains it, Speaker Pelosi wants "total control" over the media. There's that paranoia again.)

I've had a few emails from readers on this, many noting that this shouldn't be especially surprising -- far-right leaders mislead their followers about progressive policy ideas all the time. Fair enough.

But this does seem a little different than the usual palaver. Yglesias noted yesterday:

It's very strange. Political movements mischaracterize the other side's general goals all the time. But I've never heard of anything like the current conservative mania for blocking a particular legislative provision that nobody is trying to enact.

Exactly. Republicans tend to lie about legislation and policy ideas Democrats want to pass, not legislation and policy ideas they don't care about.

That said, as one emailer told me yesterday, when the next two years go by, and there's no activity at all on the fairness doctrine, conservative activists will take credit for having stop this dreaded effort to squelch free speech before it could become law.

THE HUMAN RIGHTS PRESIDENT.... Way back in 2004, in a piece that is no longer online, George W. Bush told New Yorker writer Ken Auletta, "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have."

The president has said plenty of odd things over the years, but this has always struck me as one of his more unusual boasts. It was especially odd, then, when the State Department repeated the claim yesterday.

[Thursday], Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Libyan leader Moamer Gadhafi's son, Seif al-Islam. In a press briefing yesterday leading up to the meeting, reporters pressed State Dept. spokesperson Sean McCormack on whether Rice would urge Libya to release Libyan activist Fathi al-Jahmi, a political prisoner who is gravely ill.

McCormack offered a defensive response: "I have to make it very clear we are concerned not only about Mr. al-Jahmi's case, but other human rights cases around the world." McCormack also claimed that President Bush's human rights record could perhaps be the best in American history:

McCORMACK: And -- and one thing I do take exception to is the idea that somehow we are not attentive to pushing the issue of human rights, whether it's in Libya or any place else around the world. I don't think -- I would put the record of this administration up against any American administration or any other government around the world in terms of promoting universal human rights and pushing for human rights.

I'm amazed these officials are able to make this claim with a straight face. We are, after all, talking about the president closely tied to torture, rendition, waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and suspension of habeas corpus.

Bush's human rights record can be safely compared to "any American administration or any other government around the world"? Seriously?

DADT ON THE BACKBURNER.... Barack Obama's transition team has been assiduous in its efforts to identify the early mistakes recent presidents have made, and mapping out a strategy to learn from history. It's not a surprise, then, that the President-elect is reluctant to add a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal to his early to-do list.

President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military's decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.

"I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted u