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

* Violence in Gaza continued for a fifth straight day, after talks broke down for a possible cease-fire.

* U.S. markets ended the year on an up note, after a disastrous year in which six years of gains were lost.

* Roland Burris and his staff are now referring to him as "Senator Burris." He says he plans to attend the chamber's swearing-in ceremony next week.

* Burris was, apparently, Blagojevich's second choice -- Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) turned the governor down last week.

* Speaking of Blagojevich, Patrick Fitzgerald wants an additional 90 days to bring an indictment against the governor.

* The Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging a new state law that bans unmarried couples that live together from becoming foster or adoptive parents.

* One of the main problems with the Republicans on the Federal Election Commission is that they don't seem interested in enforcing the law.

* Remember Vikki Iseman? She's suing the New York Times for $27 million.

* I'm sorry to see the Village Voice let go of Nat Hentoff.

* California's budget problems are pretty extraordinary -- and not in a good way.

* I enjoyed Andrew Golis' year-end piece: "The Ten Young Progressive Intellectuals Who Make Me Hopeful."

* Ed Kilgore has a good piece of his own, highlighting various political memes that became conventional wisdom, but which turned out to be completely wrong.

* Congratulations to James Joyner on the birth of his daughter.

* And finally, don't forget that tonight, we gain an extra second. Set your clocks accordingly.

Anything to add? Consider this the very last open thread of 2008.

GRIFFIN STILL HAS TO GO.... I've heard about plenty of behind-the-scenes lobbying for officials looking for top administration jobs, but this is just creepy.

Late on Christmas Eve, one last wish was sent, by e-mail: Please let NASA Administrator Michael Griffin keep his job. It was from his wife.

Rebecca Griffin, who works in marketing, sent her message with the subject line "Campaign for Mike" to friends and family. It asked them to sign an online petition to President-elect Barack Obama "to consider keeping Mike Griffin on as NASA Administrator."

She wrote, "Yes, once again I am embarrassing my husband by reaching out to our friends and 'imposing' on them.... And if this is inappropriate, I'm sorry."

The petition drive, which said the President George W. Bush appointee "has brought a sense of order and purpose to the U.S. space agency," was organized by Scott "Doc" Horowitz of Park City, Utah, an ex-astronaut and former NASA associate administrator.

A cash-strapped NASA last week also sent -- by priority mail costing $6.75 a package -- copies of a new NASA book called "Leadership in Space: Selected Speeches of NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, May 2005-October 2008."

Seriously? "Selected speeches"?

Without any lobbying effort at all, Griffin's chances of keeping his job would be minimal, but this campaign on his behalf is a little unseemly.

The truth is, Griffin has no realistic shot. More than anyone else in the Bush administration, he's been surprisingly uncooperative with the Obama transition team, obstinacy that's unlikely to be rewarded. It also doesn't help that Griffin isn't sure if global warming is real, and believes we should ignore the crisis, even if the evidence is accurate.

But the lobbying campaign should seal the deal.

Former NASA Deputy Administrator Hans Mark, who recommended Griffin to the Bush administration, said Griffin and his friends are handling this wrong.

"Mike ought to play it the way (retained Defense Secretary) Bob Gates is playing it, which is to shut up," Mark said.

THE POINT OF PUNDITS.... Ezra Klein had an interesting item yesterday on the role political pundits play on television.

Political scientists have studied pundit predictions and found them to be, on the overall, inaccurate. Indeed, the effect gets stronger as the pundit becomes more popular: "the better known the pundit, the less accurate his or her forecasts."

But all this suggests that political punditry has something to do with accuracy. It doesn't. It's entertainment. Just like people who like sports want to be able to watch TV shows about sports and people who like women in bikinis want to be able to watch TV shows about women in bikinis, people who like politics want to be able to watch TV shows about politics. The pundits exist to fill that need. Their role is to make those shows entertaining, so the shows have good ratings, so they can sell time for advertisers, so they can make a profit for networks.

That sounds about right. On-air pundits who are always wrong, but also always entertaining, will have lengthy and lucrative careers. That's the reality of the business.

But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

The way I see it, in a perfect world, political pundits on television would be the on-air equivalents of newspaper columnists. Just as a newspaper has beat reporters to report on events or launch investigations, it also has columnists to help "make sense of it all," not only informing an audience, but giving readers a sense of context and perspective.

Pundits, at least in theory, serve a similar role. Networks have anchors, reporters, and correspondents to tell the viewing audience what happened, and then have pundits to offer insights. These are folks who've looked at the same story the audience has, but they've thought of angles the audience hasn't considered, adding depth to our understanding of the news.

When this dynamic works, pundits' expertise is worth seeking out. When I watch Rachel Maddow or Paul Krugman give their takes on politics, I feel like I'm actually learning something, which is rare when it comes to television news.

Which is why it bugs me that there are no consequences for pundits who are consistently misguided. Using Ezra's analogy, imagine a sports commentator whose predictions are always wrong, whose rumors never pan out, and whose observations aren't based on reality. After a while, one would hope, the audience would stop taking that commentator seriously, and he/she would go away.

But that rarely happens with political pundits. It's annoying.

THE YEAR'S WORST AMERICANS.... The Guardian's Michael Tomasky pulled together the Tomasky List of the 19 Worst Americans of 2008, and it's quite a collection.

John Edwards makes the list at #16, in recognition of his awful judgment; Geraldine Ferraro comes in at #14 for her frequently-obnoxious campaign surrogacy; and the EPA's Stephen Johnson finished at #13 for his shameless on-the-job performance.

In the top 10, Eliot Spitzer probably deserves his rank at #9; Dick Cheney came in at #8 ("just because," Tomasky explained); and Joe Lieberman is obviously a fine choice at #6. The top five is very hard to disagree with: Michelle Bachmann, with the "single most appalling political statement of the year," was #5, followed by Rod Blagojevich at #4 for fairly obvious reasons.

George W. Bush was third, followed by Sarah Palin for having "perfectly embodied everything that is malign about my country: the proto-fascist nativism, the know-nothingism, the utterly cavalier lack of knowledge about the actual principles on which the country was founded." Taking the top spot was Bernard Madoff, thanks to his $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

I love Tomasky's list, but I'd just add a few more names for consideration:

* Rudy Giuliani -- His campaign hackery, before and after his own candidacy, continues to offend. His convention speech, accusing Obama of being "cosmopolitan," was so painfully stupid, it's hard to forget.

* Bill Kristol -- Dollar for dollar, the worst newspaper columnist in America was a constant source of predictable drivel and misguided predictions.

* Phil Gramm -- Not only did Gramm's policies help create the financial nightmare, but he mocked Americans' pain, calling us a "nation of whiners." That he was a leading candidate to be the Treasury Secretary in McCain's administration continues to send shivers down my spine.

* Paul Broun -- The Republican congressman from Georgia argued, publicly and on the record, that Barack Obama reminded him of Adolf Hitler. Bachmann's McCarthyism was "single most appalling political statement of the year," but Broun's insanity was second.

* And I think Ashley Todd probably belongs in the mix of the year's worst Americans. Her self-mutilation/racist/sexual-assault story was the year's most offensive stunt.

Are we forgetting anyone?

THERE IS NO BULL CONNOR IN THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS.... One can make a reasonable case that Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate should go through, Rod Blagojevich's scandal notwithstanding. But this is the wrong way to make the argument.

In an interview this morning on the CBS "Early Show," Rep. Bobby Rush compared Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's refusal to seat Roland Burris with the actions of leading segregationists from decades past, including George Wallace and Bull Connor.

Seriously, he did. Rush specifically said, "[T]he recent history of our nation has shown us that sometimes there could be individuals and there could be situations where school children -- where you have officials standing in the doorway of school children. You know, I'm talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas. I'm talking about George Wallace, Bull Connors and I'm sure that the U.S. Senate don't want to see themselves placed in the same position."

Burris himself appeared on NBC's "Today" this morning, and raised the same point, though in a more passive way: "Is it racism that is taking place? That's a question that someone may raise."

This strategy is a mistake. Blagojevich almost certainly considered Burris' race before making his announcement, but there's no evidence at all that Senate Democrats or Barack Obama are basing their opposition on anything but the governor's corruption allegations. The comparison of modern-day Senate Democrats to George Wallace and Bull Connor is baseless and irresponsible. For Burris to even raise the possibility that racism is a factor here isn't much better.

Strategically, a race-based strategy isn't just offensive, it's likely to be counter-productive. I seriously doubt Harry Reid is going to respond well to these kinds of accusations, especially when Reid has Barack Obama taking the same position.

Burris and his supporters who want to see him fill the vacancy have a far better option: emphasize the rule of law. Remind the political world, Illinois voters, and reporters that, like him or not, Blagojevich is the duly-elected governor, he has the sole authority to fill this vacancy, and he enjoys the presumption of innocence. Burris is unrelated to the governor's scandal, and he's fully qualified and eligible to serve. The Supreme Court precedent in the Powell case seems to back them up.

What's that old law-school adage? "When you have the facts, argue the facts. When you have the law, argue the law." My advice to Burris and his surrogates: skip the Bull Connor nonsense and go with the more compelling argument.

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.

* The race for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee was crowded enough, but Florida GOP Chair Jim Greer is apparently prepared to throw his hat into the ring.

* Rep. Diana DeGette (D) was a leading contender to fill Colorado's vacancy in the U.S. Senate, but she withdrew from consideration yesterday.

* Kevin Sheekey, a top deputy to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has been an enthusiastic supporter of Caroline Kennedy filling the vacancy left by Hillary Clinton, but he's reportedly pulling back now.

* Al Franken believes he's "on track to win" in Minnesota.

* There's been some talk about seating Franken before Norm Coleman's lawsuits have been completed, but NRSC chairman John Cornyn (R-Texas) denounced the idea yesterday and vowed to fight any such move.

* In the meantime, Coleman's efforts are becoming increasingly silly, while a growing number of conservatives are coming to terms with the fact that a Franken victory is very likely.

INDISCRETIONS.... Mike Barnicle had an interesting comment this week on the modern media scrutiny that might discourage people from pursuing a career in politics.

Something has happened slowly of the course of 25-30 years to diminish the industry, if you will, of politics. It's no longer the profession that it used to be. You'd have to be out of your mind to run for public office today. Say you're 32, 35 years of age. Say you were fortunate, you lucked out, you made a little money, or maybe not, but you have this great interest in public service. You want to be able to get a fire hydrant or a crosswalk, or a little league field in your neighborhood. So you run for City Council or State Rep., you know, but then two or three months over the course of your campaign or maybe after you win, someone like me, or someone like you, is going to come knock at your door, and say "James, we heard you smoked a joint when you were 19 years of age down at Duke University. Can you explain that?" And instead of having the wherewithal to tell people like us, "Hey, go f**k yourself, it's none of your business," you know, these poor people stand there and get hounded by us.

So I've got to assume there are a lot of other people out there with reasonable IQs who say, "I don't want any part of that. I don't want my kids reading about me in the front page of the paper that I smoked a joint when I was at Duke University. What has that got to do with anything?"

Thinking back to the 1987 failure of Douglas Ginsburg's nomination to the Supreme Court, Barnicle's observation makes some sense, but I think the political world has matured considerably in the ensuing 20 years.

My impression is that voters simply no longer care, and as a result, there's little incentive for media outlets to pursue these "controversies." Indeed, if and when reporters pursue this, the public tends to collectively roll their eyes. As Jason Zengerle noted, Barack Obama admitted teenaged drug use and it "didn't bring him any grief from reporters," or voters, for that matter.

There's a line for personal indiscretions that's often hard to identify, but it doesn't seem to apply to decisions from one's youth. People out there with reasonable IQs with a great interest in public service should rest easy -- no one cares what they did in college.

GONZALES FEELS SORRY FOR HIMSELF.... Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales left office in disgrace 16 months ago, and has kept a low profile since. His reputation has not improved in the interim -- Gonzales has struggled to find a law firm willing to hire him -- but at least he hasn't said or done anything ridiculous since his departure from public life.

Gonzales, however, is apparently interested in some kind of comeback. The former A.G. is writing a book about his tenure in the Bush administration and chatted with the Wall Street Journal about how mean everyone has been to him.

"What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?" he said during an interview Tuesday, offering his most extensive comments since leaving government.

During a lunch meeting two blocks from the White House, where he served under his longtime friend, President George W. Bush, Mr. Gonzales said that "for some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror."

Is Gonzales really that confused about what he did that was "so fundamentally wrong"? I suppose he proved during multiple congressional hearings that his memory is similar to that of someone who's suffered serious head trauma, but Gonzales' list of scandals is hard to forget.

Just off the top of my head, there was the U.S. Attorney purge scandal, Gonzales signing torture memos, his conduct in John Ashcroft's hospital room, his oversight of a Justice Department that was engaged in widespread employment discrimination, and his gutting of the DoJ's Civil Rights Division. Gonzales was even investigated by the department's Inspector General on allegations of perjury and obstruction.

On warrantless-searches, the Military Commissions Act, policy on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales was a disaster. On managing the Justice Department, he filled his staff with Pat Robertson acolytes, feigned ignorance while structural disasters unfolded, and showed shocking tolerance for corruption and politicization of a department that, for the benefit of the nation and the rule of law, needed to maintain independence.

Andrew Cohen, the editor and chief legal analyst for CBS News, wrote a primer last year that Gonzales may want to reference to help refresh his memory.

By any reasonable standard, the Gonzales Era at the Justice Department is void of almost all redemptive qualities. He brought shame and disgrace to the Department because of his lack of independent judgment on some of the most vital legal issues of our time. And he brought chaos and confusion to the department because of his lack of respectable leadership over a cabinet-level department among the most important in the nation.

He neither served the longstanding role as "the people's attorney" nor fully met and tamed his duties and responsibilities to the constitution. He was a man who got the job not because he was supremely qualified or notably well-respected among the leading legal lights of our time, but because he had faithfully and with blind obedience served President George W. Bush for years in Texas (where he botched clemency memos in death penalty cases) and then as White House counsel (where he botched the nation's legal policy on torture).

That Gonzales feels sorry for himself now seems somehow predictable, but that doesn't make it any less pathetic.

SHOULD THE SENATE REJECT BURRIS?.... OK, so there's quite a bit of disagreement over whether the Senate has the authority to reject Roland Burris' Senate appointment based on concerns over Rod Blagojevich. But at least there's widespread agreement that Senate Democrats are doing the right thing by taking a stand and rejecting Blagojevich's efforts.

Or, on second thought, maybe there isn't.

At first blush, it seems like a no-brainer. Senate Dems have forcefully opposed Blagojevich, so it stands to reason they would stand up for an ethical process and reject Blagojevich's stunt, Burris' qualifications and record notwithstanding. It's about propriety.

But there's also a flip side. Brian Beutler, who's slammed Blagojevich's corruption repeatedly, argued last night that Barack Obama and Senate Democrats are "doing the wrong thing" by refusing to accept Burris' appointment.

Politically, then, the question is: Would it really look SO bad for Dems to say something like "While we regret that Gov. Blagojevich flouted the will of Senate Democrats, we are chastened by the fact that he's selected a decorated public servant who has no ties to the scandal hanging over the Illinois statehouse. We assume Roland Burris will serve his constituents well, and, if he fails, voters will have the final say in two years."? I don't really think it would. [...]

It's worth pointing out though, that Blago's still an innocent man and as long as he's governor, filling that seat is his prerogative. It would be a much different story if he'd gone ahead and selected somebody widely believed to have entertained the notion of buying the seat. But that's not what happened.

Similarly, John Cole, said he "fundamentally disagrees" with the Democrats' position on this.

We are a nation of rules, after all. How about we follow them rather than creating all this damned drama? Blagojevich will have his day in court, but for now he is legally the governor, he is legally carrying out his duties, and unless and until the Democrats grab the stones to get rid of him, they should suck it up and deal with his pick.

John added, "If Burris is clean and a good pick otherwise, seat him."

I'm hesitant, but I'll concede there's a reasonable argument here. Blagojevich is the duly-elected governor, whether he should be or not. He has the legal authority and responsibility to fill the vacancy, whether he should exercise it or not. He enjoys the presumption of innocence, whether he looks guilty or not. Burris, meanwhile, is not only unrelated to the governor's scandal, but is also otherwise qualified. He would always be known as "Blagojevich's man in the Senate," and there may be a permanent cloud over his office, but that's Burris' problem. If he's willing to accept that burden, that's his decision to make.

Come January, not only will Illinois need both senators, but Democrats in the chamber will need a full caucus to deal with Republican obstructionism in a time of crisis.

It's probably too late for Democratic leaders to change their position, but the notion of accepting this appointment is arguably not as outrageous as it might seem at first glance.

CAN THE SENATE REJECT BURRIS?.... We know that Rod Blagojevich, corruption allegations notwithstanding, has the legal authority to fill the state's vacant U.S. Senate seat. Whether the Senate has the legal authority to reject his choice is far less clear.

The fact that no one seems sure makes a court fight a virtual certainty, but it's a fascinating question to ponder -- can the Senate reject a fully qualified appointee based on concerns over the appointor? The Senate leadership clearly believes it can.

The senators pointed to a provision in the Constitution that states: "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." [...]

The Supreme Court has said the Senate and House cannot refuse to seat new members who meet all qualifications for office. In 1969, it rebuked the House for refusing to seat Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., a Democrat from New York who was reelected despite being accused of ethical lapses.

The constitutional standard for House and Senate "is identical," the court said, but it did not consider whether an appointed senator has different standing than one who is elected.

Of course, in Powell's case, there were allegations against him personally, while Burris hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing. With Powell, the court ruled that if Congress didn't want him to serve, lawmakers had to accept his election and then hold an expulsion vote, which they did. But it would be far trickier to follow a similar course with Burris -- letting him take the oath of office and then expelling him on the basis of Blagojevich's conduct would be, for lack of a better word, problematic.

There's no shortage of opinions, but I've noticed more than a few credible experts who believe the Senate cannot legally reject Burris. Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional law expert at Yale Law School, said, "[T]he fact of the matter is the governor of Illinois is acting under his lawful authority as the governor of Illinois.... It's quite a different thing to say that the lawful governor of a state cannot make an appointment because they don't like what they've heard about him."

Sam Stein spoke to another legal scholar who concluded that the Senate doesn't have a choice here: "Burris has met all of those qualifications: he's over 30, been a US citizen for 9 years, he's an Illinois resident; he was appointed by the executive authority of the state to fill a vacancy, pursuant to Illinois law."

The AP did some research and came to the exact opposite conclusion, insisting that the Senate "has final say over whether a governor's pick should be allowed to serve in the Senate."

There is a possible way out that might sidestep a legal mess. The WaPo noted that the appointment could be referred to the Senate Rules Committee for an investigation. While that was ongoing, state lawmakers could impeach Blagojevich. Robert Walker, the former chief counsel of the Senate ethics committee, said, "The Senate, basically as a practical matter, is going to do what it wants to do."

We'll see.

THE TWISTS AND TURNS OF A POLITICAL SOAP OPERA.... As absurd as the Rod Blagojevich scandal has been, there appeared to be a light at the end of the tunnel. The state legislature would impeach the governor, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn (D) would assume the office, and a legitimate senator would fill the state's vacancy. Quinn noted that he believed the process would be complete by early-February.

But, no. As we saw yesterday, Roland Burris seems awfully pleased by the prospect of joining the U.S. Senate, and Blagojevich is just tickled by his ability to stick his thumb in the political world's eye.

Anxious to inject a racial element to the developments, Rep. Bobby Rush (D) of Chicago said yesterday that he does not believe any senator "wants to go on record to deny one African American from being seated in the U.S. Senate." But senators are going to get some cover from the African-American president -- Barack Obama issued a statement siding with his Senate Democrats in their decision to reject Blagojevich appointees:

"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy."

Illinois' Dick Durbin, the #2 Democrat in the Senate, also didn't seem especially worried about appearances, saying Blagojevich's effort "will lead nowhere."

For his part, during an odd MSNBC interview, Burris believes we'll see "a major outcry from the people of Illinois" if the Senate rejects his appointment. I have no idea what leads Burris to believe this, but I suspect senators aren't going to care.

And what about Jesse White, the Illinois secretary of state, who said he would refuse to sign Blagojevich paperwork on the appointment? That's unlikely to matter -- the NYT noted, "[A]fter Mr. White's lawyers scanned the legal precedents on the question, there appeared to be no statutory requirement that Mr. White's signature be included, his spokesman said, so the move seemed likely to be mostly symbolic."

Moving forward, there are plenty of questions, but two of the key issues are a) whether the Senate can block Burris' appointment; and b) whether the Senate should block his appointment. I'll be tackling both shortly.

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

* Israel is considering a temporary cease-fire in Gaza. Should Hamas rocket fire disrupt a cease-fire, Israel is threatening a ground offensive.

* Consumer confidence reached an all-time low this month, hitting depths unseen since the Conference Board began keeping track 41 years ago. Nevertheless, the major indexes rallied today, each closing up more than 2%.

* If you missed the wild Blagojevich press conference today, it's online.

* On a related note, the U.S. Senate isn't the embattled governor's only hurdle to filling the Senate vacancy -- Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White said today he won't certify Blagojevich's paperwork.

* Also on this story, Jeff Greenfield considers whether the Senate really does have the authority to refuse a legally-appointed U.S. senator.

* The Treasury Department is committing $6 billion to bolster GMAC.

* The International Monetary Fund's top economist believes Obama's approach to economic recovery is the right one.

* Muntazer al-Zaidi, the shoe thrower, is facing up to 15 years in prison. (Update: The trial has been delayed.)

* Naturally, John Bolton looks at the violence in Gaza and believes this is an ideal time for the U.S. to attack Iran.

* Kevin makes a good point about why Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina ruined his presidency.

* Kudos to John Judis for sticking up for Spencer Ackerman, after Martin Peretz described Ackerman's articles as "trash."

* Dennis Prager is back with more sexual advice for married women everywhere. I'm beginning to think there really may be something wrong with that guy.

* Are taxpayers on the hook for Bernard Madoff losses?

* Like Zbigniew Brzezinski, I've long believed that Joe Scarborough has "such a stunningly superficial knowledge" of current events that "it's almost embarrassing to listen" to him.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH.... I've long believed one of the central problems with Sarah Palin, as a candidate for national office, wasn't just her breathtaking disinterest in matters of public policy, but also her similarities to a certain someone who had a comparable distaste for substance, veracity, and details.

Larry Wilkerson, a top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said Vice President Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld promoted the notion they were a national security "dream team" to guide the foreign-policy amateur Bush.

"It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin-like President -- because, let's face it, that's what he was -- was going to be protected by this national security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire," said Wilkerson.

Given Wilkerson description, Spencer Ackerman asks, "Is comparing Bush to Sarah Palin more insulting to Bush or to Palin?"

Yglesias seems to believe this isn't even a contest: "Palin's something of a laughingstock, but Bush is a villain. I mean, he wrecked the world economy, he led to millions of Iraqis being forced to flee their homes, he's a total disaster and a disgrace. Palin gave bad answers in TV interviews. There's no real comparison."

I suppose that's right. When it comes to consequences, Bush's presidency has been a nightmare, while Palin was merely a humiliating addition to the national Republican ticket.

But if we put aside the question of corollaries and consider Bush's and Palin's characteristics as politicians and would-be leaders, the comparison isn't too far-fetched. Both were out of their depth seeking national office, both are strikingly uninformed, both suffer from an eerie misguided confidence, and both seem to consider policy details as minor annoyances to be ignored.

Sure, Palin wasn't able to do serious national (and international) damage, but isn't it fair to say both she and Bush are cut from the same cloth?

CIRCUS.... I hope I wasn't the only one who watched the Blagojevich/Burris press conference rather gobsmacked. The controversy surrounding Blagojevich was surreal enough before today, but this afternoon's leak, followed by a bizarre press conference, has moved this story from bizarre to farcical.

Blagojevich introduced Burris, Burris offered some boilerplate rhetoric, and largely pretended that the man standing next to him is not scandal-plagued at all. Blagojevich emphasized a few times that the people of Illinois deserve two senators, so he had no choice but to make this decision.

The Q&A portion was a mess, and after several questions, Burris noticed that Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) was in the room. Burris, unexpectedly, invited Rush to say a few words, and the congressman ended up saying more than either Blagojevich or Burris.

It bordered on surreal. Rush said Blagojevich had answered his prayers, and insisted that voters make a distinction between the "designatee" and the "designator." Rush spoke at some length about the lack of African Americans in the Senate -- if seated, Burris would be the only one -- and effectively argued that Senate Democrats couldn't possibly reject Burris' appointment without snubbing African Americans in general. It wasn't just playing the race card, it was playing the race card old school.

Rush said he would personally urge the Senate to seat Burris, vowing to "persuade them, challenge them, beg them, whatever it takes."

The word "lynching" was thrown around a few too many times.

I have to admit, watching the bizarre event unfold, Blagojevich seemed to be having a great time. I got the sense that he thinks, for the first time in weeks, that he's finally on the offense, sticking it to, well, pretty much everyone. He even took a shot at the legislature, saying today's decision is their fault, because they didn't call for the special election he wanted.

It was quite the political circus.

Update: Looking over my notes, I had one other observation to pass along. Burris was asked if he'd seek re-election if he takes office. He said he'd "determine that when we get to that point."

DEMS WILL NOT SEAT BURRIS.... Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich thought Senate Democrats wouldn't have the guts to reject Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate. He thought wrong.

The Senate Democratic Leadership issued this statement this afternoon, in advance of the Blagojevich press conference, which is set to begin in a half-hour:

"It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris's ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.

"Next week we will start one of the most important debates of the year -- outlining an economic recovery plan to create jobs and invest in America. And in the coming weeks, we will be working to protect homeowners and consumers, make America more energy independent, strengthen our national security, and improve health care and educational opportunities. There is much work to do and a lot at stake. It is thus critical that Illinois and every other state have two seated Senators without delay.

"We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment. It is unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand. The governor must put the interests of the people of Illinois and all Americans first by stepping aside now and letting his successor appoint someone who we will seat."

Good for them. It might have been tempting for them to seat Burris and end the questions about the vacancy, but Senate Dems did the right thing and followed through on their threat to Blagojevich.

We'll see if and how the governor responds to this in about 30 minutes.

DOES BURRIS HAVE A CHANCE?.... In the previous post, a reader in Illinois summarizes a point I've heard quite a bit this afternoon about former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, Rod Blagojevich's apparent choice to fill Barack Obama's seat in the Senate.

Taking the appointment at face value, Roland is well known and liked here in Illinois. He built a long career in politics without hint of scandal, which, as has been documented as nauseum, is not an easy thing to do here. He's a great choice.

A TPM reader in Illinois makes a similar point.

My home state's culture of political corruption is well documented. Roland Burris managed to build a career in politics in this state without falling into that muck. He is, to the best of everyone's knowledge, squeaky clean, and he's highly respected. He's 71 years old, so I wonder if he intends to serve as a caretaker. But he's an honorable guy, well liked by people across the state in both parties. It's a stroke of brilliance by Blagojevich in my opinion.

I've seen/heard similar sentiments elsewhere. Indeed, more than a few people have suggested that Blagojevich wanted to find the one person voters in Illinois would approve of, and the one person senators in D.C. would consider actually seating, and Burris was the only name that fit the bill.

It's certainly possible that Harry Reid and other Senate leaders may, in fact, pause before rejecting a respected figure like Burris, who would be the chamber's only African-American member.

But my hunch is that pause won't last long. Senators told Blagojevich, in writing and in no uncertain terms, that his choice wouldn't be seated. Reid & Co. may respect Burris, but this really isn't about him, it's about the governor. What are senators going to say, "We were going to reject Blagojevich's choice, but since he picked a respected black man, we've changed our minds"? I doubt it.

This is hardly a situation in which senators would worry about accusations of racism. It's pretty obvious lawmakers have a problem with Blagojevich's alleged corruption, nothing more.

For what it's worth, while Burris is going to have to explain why he'd even accept this appointment in the first place, Adam Serwer notes that Burris probably won't be labeled a close Blagojevich ally.

Burris announced his interest in the [vacant Senate] seat at a December 13 press conference. And he didn't pull any punches with regards to the governor. He described Blagojevich's alleged efforts to sell the Senate appointment as "pretty appalling" and "just reprehensible." He also endorsed Attorney Gen. Lisa Madigan's effort at the time to get the Illinois Supreme Court to remove the governor from office, describing Blagojevich as "incapacitated."

Stay tuned.

Update: A Democratic leadership aide told Ben Smith that Majority Leader Harry Reid views Burris as "unacceptable." Also, in case it matters, Josh Kalvin notes that Burris has said he would not seek another term.

BLAGOJEVICH TO APPOINT BURRIS.... Well, this is a bit of a surprise.

I've learned that Gov. Blagojevich is poised to name former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to replace President elect Barack Obama in the Senate on Tuesday afternoon. The embattled Blagojevich, fighting impeachment charges in the Illinois House, just called a press conference for 2 p.m. Chicago time at the Thompson State of Illinois Center.

Burris was the first African American to win statewide office in Illinois when he was elected comptroller, serving from 1983 to 1991. He served as Illinois Attorney General from 1991 to 1995. Burris previously ran and lost bids for the U.S. senate and governor.

If tapped as planned, Burris would be the sole African American in the U.S. Senate.

Burris, who is 71, has sought higher office before, but lost in Democratic primaries in races for Chicago mayor, governor, and U.S. senator. It's unclear whether he would be considered a "place-holder" senator, or whether Burris would plan to seek a full term of his own.

For that matter, there's the not inconsequential issue of whether a Burris announcement will have any practical value at all. Three weeks ago, every member of the Senate Democratic caucus wrote Blagojevich a letter, urging him not to fill the Senate vacancy, and explaining that the chamber would exercise its constitutional authority and refuse to seat any official the governor appointed. (Indeed, two weeks ago, Blagojevich's lawyer said the governor would not even try to fill the vacancy for this reason.)

Does that still stand? Is Burris a respected enough figure that senators may reconsider?

If these reports are accurate, and the governor does make a selection today, does Burris show up to stand with Blagojevich? How does he separate himself from the scandal, and make clear he's not "Blagojevich's man"? What does this do to the drive for a special election? Questions, questions.

What happens now is open to debate, but one thing's for certain: Blagojevich is apparently throwing the chess board in the air. It was obvious from the criminal complaint that the governor has plenty of chutzpah, but I suspect few saw this one coming.

Update: The WSJ has a good piece with more on Burris' background.

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.

* Rahm Emanuel will formally give up his House seat on Friday. It falls to Rod Blagojevich, of all people, to set a date for a special election. There are as many as 11 Democrats eyeing the race.

* As of right now, Al Franken leads Norm Coleman by 50 votes.

* The Coleman campaign yesterday offered a list of rejected absentee ballots that they say should be counted, but they're all from Republican strongholds. Coleman's team is also gearing up to go after state election officials.

* CNN did a national poll on whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified to serve as a U.S. senator. A 52% majority said she is, while 42% said she isn't. There was a sizable gender gap.

* Candidates vying to be the chairman of the Republican National Committee may engage in a "special forum," in which each contender would outline their visions for the party's future.

* Hopes that Gov. Kathleen Sebelius might run for the Senate in 2010 would be dashed if she becomes the chancellor of the University of Kansas, as is now rumored.

JUST GIVE US THE BIKE.... Earlier this month, Jon Stewart had a great bit on why we should let Barack Obama be president now, instead of making us wait until Jan. 20: "It's like when you were a kid and your parents bought you a bike. You knew it was a bike. It's shaped like a bike; what else could it be? But they wouldn't let you open it until Christmas. I guess what I'm saying is, just give us the bike."

There are plenty of major democracies -- England comes to mind -- that forgo lengthy transition processes. A head of state wins, and almost immediately, takes office. Forget that lame-duck phase -- voters pick a candidate and then get a leader.

How'd we end up with an 11-week transition? Christopher Smith has a piece in The New Republic today, arguing that we shouldn't have to wait so long for the inauguration, and explains a bit about the history.

Thank the 20th Amendment, ratified in 1933 -- which actually shortened the transition period from a glacial four months. Beginning in 1793, at the start of George Washington's second term, Inauguration Day was March 4. This made some sense back when the Electoral College had meaning, and when it took weeks for the electors and the new administration to travel by horse and wagon across muddy paths from around the country to Washington.

But a couple of scary transition periods made plain the need to shorten the handover of power. The first was in 1861, when the country was on the verge of civil war; Abraham Lincoln was forced to watch Jefferson Davis inaugurated as president of the Confederacy while he was stuck on the sidelines. The second, eerily familiar, transition of our discontent came in 1933. Herbert Hoover had bungled the country into the beginning of the Great Depression, stoking the election of Franklin Roosevelt. Though FDR was in some ways happy for the lengthy pause, using it to distance himself as far as possible from Hoover's suggestions about how to save the banking industry, he knew that the country's stability was endangered by the delay -- a period historians have labeled, in a deliciously gloomy turn of phrase, "the interregnum of despair." There had been attempts since 1922 to eliminate a four-month lame duck Congressional session. Agreement was finally reached to swear in the new Congress on January 3, just after New Year's parties had ended. The president's arrival also shifted, but the choice of date appears to have been something of an afterthought. "January 20 seemed to be a simple decision based on a rounding notion that the president should follow the new Congress into office within a reasonable amount of time," says NYU professor Paul C. Light. "That's an interesting twist. [Moving the presidential inauguration] had less to do originally with urgency than with the prerogatives of Congress."

75 years ago, we recognized that life had sped up, and that our power structure should adapt accordingly. Why not do it again?

Realistically, the date isn't going to change. It would take a constitutional amendment, and that's highly unlikely. For that matter, the executive branch is awfully big, and transition teams tend to use every last day of the interregnum making staffing decisions. Shortening the period would be, for incoming officials, pretty inconvenient.

But for the rest of us, it's tempting, isn't it?

'NOT A BIG READER'.... As part of its end-of-presidency wrap-up, Vanity Fair notes this interesting tidbit from Richard Clarke, the former chief White House counterterrorism adviser.

"We had a couple of meetings with the president, and there were detailed discussions and briefings on cyber-security and often terrorism, and on a classified program. With the cyber-security meeting, he seemed -- I was disturbed because he seemed to be trying to impress us, the people who were briefing him. It was as though he wanted these experts, these White House staff guys who had been around for a long time before he got there -- didn't want them buying the rumor that he wasn't too bright. He was trying -- sort of overly trying -- to show that he could ask good questions, and kind of yukking it up with Cheney.

"The contrast with having briefed his father and Clinton and Gore was so marked. And to be told, frankly, early in the administration, by Condi Rice and [her deputy] Steve Hadley, you know, Don't give the president a lot of long memos, he's not a big reader -- well, shit. I mean, the president of the United States is not a big reader?"

Funny, just last week Karl Rove told us the president is a voracious reader, who reads dense texts "to relax and because he's curious," and for 35 years, George W. Bush has "always had a book nearby."

Given Rove's description, I wonder why top administration officials would tell the chief White House counterterrorism adviser that Bush is "not a big reader." It's almost as if Rove's description is some kind of wild exaggeration. That couldn't be, could it?

THE WELL WAS FINE.... I find this very annoying.

Former Bush media adviser Mark McKinnon said the administration was in trouble even before taking office in the aftermath of the 2000 recount in which the Supreme Court effectively ruled that Bush had won Florida.

"The recount poisoned the well from the beginning," McKinnon said.

"A good number of people in this country didn't believe Bush was a legitimate President. And you can't change the tone under those circumstances."

Nonsense. After the recount debacle, Bush, as president-elect, had ample public support, with a 65% approval rating before he took office. His numbers faltered in the spring and summer of 2001, not because of questions about the legitimacy of his presidency, but because of the way Bush governed, which included driving Jim Jeffords from the Republican Party altogether.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Bush's approval ratings soared to unseen heights, with most of the country not only rallying around their national leader, but hoping, desperately, that the president was a competent, capable man in a time of crisis. When Bush proved otherwise, Americans gave up on him.

The notion of blaming the recount is a cop-out. Bush was given a chance -- to "change the tone," to govern, to lead -- and he blew it. This had nothing to do with the ridiculous circumstances that led Bush into office.

SALTSMAN GETS A BOOST.... Josh Marshall noted last night, "I think I have this right. The Republican party has decided on the racial joke issue as the vehicle to reintroduce themselves to the American people after the 2008 blowout."

It may sound odd, but that's the situation we're dealing with, after Chip Saltsman, a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, decided to distribute a CD containing "Barack the Magic Negro" as a Christmas greeting to members of the RNC. After Saltsman drew criticism from Mike Duncan and Saul Anuzis, both rivals for the chairmanship, I predicted that Saltsman would likely see conservatives "rally around him, protecting him from those who 'can't take a joke.'"

And with that in mind, the Politico's Andy Barr reports today that the "Magic Negro" flap may have "inadvertently helped" Saltsman's RNC candidacy, with some RNC officials "rallying around" around him.

Alabama Republican committeeman Paul Reynolds said the fact the Saltsman sent him a CD with the song on it "didn't bother me one bit."

"Chip probably could have thought it through a bit more, but he was doing everyone a favor by giving us a gift," he said. "This is just people looking for something to make an issue of."

"I don't think he intended it as any kind of racial slur. I think he intended it as a humor gift," Oklahoma GOP committeewoman Carolyn McClarty added. "I think it was innocently done by Chip."

Indeed, taking this to the next logical step, some RNC members are saying that Duncan and Anuzis may have hurt themselves by criticizing Saltsman's judgment. One RNC member told the Politico, "Those are two guys who just eliminated themselves from this race for jumping all over Chip on this. Mike Duncan is a nice guy, but he screwed up big time by pandering to the national press on this." Several more have "expressed anger toward Duncan and Anuzis 'for throwing a good Republican under the bus.'"

So, to summarize, a leading candidate to lead the Republican National Committee promoted a song calling the next president a "magic negro." This has improved his chances of getting the job.

Got it.

MCCONNELL, BOEHNER LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN A CRACK.... That congression