Some conservatives had a really hard time watching John McCain lose. That's okay. Liberals, after losing two elections to George W. Bush, can relate. But some people are having a harder time coping than others. For example, before the election, Bill O'Reilly was clinging desperately to the faint hope that every poll showing Obama ahead in a particular state was subject to about a ten point Bradley Effect:

This looks absurd now, but it did even then, and Kos had a great time making fun of it. But hey, predictions are predictions, and everyone's wrong sometimes. But you really get the impression O'Reilly is having some closure issues looking at the map that's currently on his website, via Spencer Ackerman:

Basically, in the alternate universe known as "The No Spin Zone" North Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana and Nevada haven't been called yet. I believe this is the stage of grief known as "denial".

--A. Serwer

Michael Kinsley needs to retain his reputation has a witty contrarian, so today he has a column arguing that we should all stop being so uptight about whether or not Obama is smoking and just let him have a toke. In fact, Kinsley assumes that Obama is smoking mad jacks anyway:

Now, I have been enjoying Obama euphoria as much as anyone. Without it, the prospect would be depressing indeed. But where is the skepticism? If Obama actually has accomplished the miracle of giving up cigarettes at the apogee of a presidential race, he should be happy to let us know this and add to his superman image. And if he hasn't? Well, if he is straight with us about it, we should forgive him. So he's not a superman. Neither are we. In a democracy, that is a good thing for ruler and ruled to know they have in common. Furthermore, as presidential vices go, this one is not near the top. As for being a role model for youths, Obama's good habits outweigh this single bad one. He's great on hydration, apparently.

[...]

Another question is what effect a president desperate for a cigarette and trying to quit might have on your life expectancy and mine. Obama's steely calm is now one of our country's major assets. If he needs an occasional cigarette to preserve it, let's hand him an ashtray, offer him a light and look the other way.

Now, this column may seem trivial in light of the news that the health insurance industry is interested in discussing mandates, Janet Napolitano potentially being our next head of Homeland Security (Napolitano was impeccably profiled by our own Dana Goldstein earlier this year), and the tone deafness of auto executives that may have just doomed their industry, but ... no, wait, it does seem trivial.

But maybe the most irritating thing about the column -- and I say this as a former smoker -- is that if Kinsley actually thought Obama should be allowed to keep smoking unmolested, he wouldn't have drawn attention to it by writing a whole column about how he's probably smoking anyway and how we shouldn't care, thus making the subject of Obama's smoking a topic of discussion.

--A. Serwer

• The Obama transition team has announced a slew of policy directors, the most prominent being Former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle who will also reportedly be head of Health and Human Services and White House health czar. Ezra nails the relevance of the pick: "Daschle signals that the Obama administration view health care as a political problem." Precisely. Wonkish details are intellectually interesting but at the end of the day you gotta pass the bill and that's what Daschle is equipped to do.
• In other transition news, the Obama team has tapped CBO Director Peter Orszag for budget director, and possibly Max Cleland or Tammy Duckworth for Secretary of Veterans Affairs or Secretary of the Army. Obama also appears to be negotiating to keep Robert Gates on as Defense Secretary, at least short-term, and Arlen Specter tells First Read that the Holder appointment would be news to him (it's unusual for the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to be in the dark, historically).
• Hillary Clinton's close to $8 million in campaign debt from her presidential run may become a problem if she accepts a position as Secretary of State, since she'd have to raise funds while serving in the administration, a potential ethics violation. On the other hand, becoming SoS might give her a compelling case to ask the FEC to forgive the debts. In other Hillary news, Ted Kennedy offers Clinton the chance to head the Senate's health care working group if she doesn't go to Foggy Bottom.
• The House Democratic Steering Committee narrowly nominated Henry Waxman over John Dingell to chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Tim explains what this means.
  
• John McCain has announced that he will run for reelection in 2010 although, as Dana notes, he might face real competition in Arizona from Gov. Janet Napolitano.
• Delaware's Democratic Governor-elect Jack Markell plans on being sworn in at midnight on January 20, which would allow him to name Joe Biden's replacement if the vice president-elect resigns his Senate seat after being sworn in.
• The Minnesota recount begins today and will determine whether Norm Coleman will retain his Senate seat or lose it to Al Franken. Yesterday, Mark Begich prevailed over Ted Stevens in Alaska, giving the Democrats 58 seats for the 111th Congress. In other election remainders, Missouri -- and its 11 electoral votes -- is finally being called for McCain, and Salt Lake City went for Barack Obama by 296 votes, even thought the state as a whole went for McCain by 29 points.
• A Willacy County, Texas, grand jury has indicted vice president Richard Cheney and former AG Alberto Gonzales over use of a detention facility, even though the county has no federal jurisdiction. Will Bunch has the background on the case.
• And finally, in its ongoing efforts to prove that America truly is a center-right nation, Newsweek probes the serious question of whether Barack Obama is indeed the Antichrist. Hey, maybe next week they can do a Q & A with Alan Keyes regarding his quest to get Barack Obama to provide his birth records prior to being inaugurated!

--Mori Dinauer

From National Review, Shelby Steele can't let it go:

Everywhere I went on my book tour, young people would come up. “We’re beyond your generation,” they would tell me. “We grew up differently than you did.” No, I tell them, you didn’t. You did not. You are now obsessed with race. Race is the only thing that’s driving your interest in Barack Obama. You couldn’t even tell me what his policies are. You’re never critical of him in any way. If you were free of race you would not judge him culturally. You would judge him politically. You just -- you are consumed by race.

Steele is the author of the following books:

A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win

White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era.

A Dream Deferred: The Second Betrayal of Black Freedom in America.

The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America.

If only you race-obsessed maniacs would stop being infatuated with race, Shelby Steele could stop writing books about it.

--A. Serwer

P.S. Please feel free to visit our Steele disambiguation page.

I'd be remiss if I didn't point you to Eve Fairbank's smart analysis of the House GOP leadership elections:

In a political moment when Republicans are bitterly split between the vanishing moderates, who believe that embracing their centrism is the only way to save the party, and the ascendant conservatives, who are itching to repurify the party along right-wing principles, Boehner maintains power - for now - by dancing between the two poles. "Boehner stays because he's acceptable to both sides -- the hard-core [conservatives] and the non-hard-cores," explains another Republican staffer. It's a pivot even Rahm, a former male ballerina, could envy.

In answering the question of why Boehner is still leader -- which baffled even veteran Democratic operatives, who felt, reasonably enough, that losing fifty seats in two years is a firing offense -- Fairbanks also explains why Boehner is not a very effective leader. Balanced between two poles of his caucus but not really asserting control over either, it's going to be hard for the tan, cigarette smoking* congressman to really move his caucus on legislation. Consider the example of the bailout bill, where, in the act of trying to have it both ways, Boehner let his caucus destroy the bill's chance of passing on the first vote, breaking his promise to the Democratic leadership that he would find enough votes to put the bailout over the top. While Boehner remains the face of the caucus, the rest of the new leadership is quite a bit further right than the previous session, suggesting a very obstinate minority that won't necessarily be swayed by their leader's blandishments.

-- Tim Fernholz

*According to my contract as a Washington-based journalist, I have to mention that Boehner has a tan and smokes every time I write about him. Weird, huh?

More news from the transition ...

Senior Advisor to the President: David Axelrod. Que sorpresa!

White House Counsel: Gregory Craig. Discussed here.

Staff Secretary: Lisa Brown. A former counsel to the Vice President under Al Gore, Brown was most recently executive director of the American Constitution Society, essentially the liberal answer to the Federalist Society. The position of staff secretary involves managing the president's paperwork and communication; it's not a lightweight job and requires a light touch and the ability to manage competing agendas. One former White House staff secretary? Current transition head John Podesta held the job during Bill Clinton's first term.

Cabinet Secretary: Chris Lu. Now the executive director of the transition, Lu was Obama's legislative director in the Senate and had worked for Henry Waxman's House Government Oversight committee. He is also, I believe, a former law school classmate of the president-elect. The cabinet secretary job is similar to the staff secretary but involves policy coordination between various executive agencies.

--Tim Fernholz

Via Jon Chait, Ross Douthat talks about how Obama may guard his right flank with foreign policy:

Here's a fearless prediction: On an awful lot of issues, the Obama foreign policy will end cutting to the right of Bill Clinton's foreign policy, which was already more center-left than left. Even with the GOP brand in the toilet, Republicans are still trusted as much or more than Dems on foreign policy, mostly for somewhat nebulous "toughness" reasons. So why give the Right a chance to play what's just about its only winning card, when you can satisfy your base with a phased withdrawal from Iraq that's scheduled to happen anyway while waxing hawkish on Pakistan, Afghanistan ... and who knows, maybe Iran as well? (I have a sneaking suspicion that a President Obama will be slightly more likely to authorize airstrikes against Iran than a President McCain would have been.) Meanwhile, on detainee policy, wiretapping, etc. you can earn plaudits from liberals for showily abandoning the worst excesses of the Bush era, while actually holding on to most of the post-9/11 powers that the Bushies claimed. Obama already made fans of Niall Ferguson and Eli Lake; by 2012, I wouldn't be surprised if he's converted Max Boot as well.

And with his right flank safely guarded (assuming, of course, that Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iran doesn't become his Administration's Iraq), he'll have that much more political for the big-ticket goals that will guarantee his place in the liberal pantheon - universal health care, a New Deal for energy policy, a succession of young liberal judges who will tilt the Supreme Court leftward for a generation, etc. Among right-wing hawks, there will be strange-new-respectful talk about Obama's centrist instincts, his Scoop Jackson-ish tendencies, his Reaganesque blend of idealism, pragmatism and strength. Meanwhile, the rest of the right-wing coalition will be getting steamrolled.

I'm not sure Ross is right here -- pun intended -- or rather, I think he's doing a little revisionist history. For starters, the two keystones of Obama's foreign policy that have drawn the most attention, withdrawing from Iraq and negotiating with states like Iran, are pretty much anathema to folks like Max Boot, and don't really represent the hard right at all. I'm not sure where Ross gets the idea that Obama will be more likely to launch missiles at Iran than McCain except that, having lost the presidential race, McCain won't be launching missiles at anyone. Of course, Obama has made clear that he won't tolerate a nuclear Iran, but it's equally clear that he's going to do everything he can -- and that Bush or McCain wouldn't do -- to make sure it doesn't come to that. Afghanistan may be the only example where Ross's analogy does hold true -- Obama has committed, thus far, to a pretty hawkish strategy of increasing troop strength. But I expect a lot of debate over that decision in the coming six months.

But if Ross is right, then I'm worried. Anyone else remember a liberal president who used military adventurism to shore up his right flank while enacting broad progressive domestic legislation? Why, Lyndon Johnson, of course, who inherited Vietnam from his predecessor and worried constantly that he'd appear weak even as it became increasingly clear that being in Vietnam was a bad policy. Eventually, as the story goes, it destroyed his presidency. Ross recognizes that Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran could become Obama's Iraq, and that would be disastrous to both his domestic agenda and his presidency. The problem is that Obama will create a foreign policy quagmire if if sticks to right-wing foreign policy choices. It's in his best interest to apply his pragmatic liberalism across the board. For more on what that means, check out Spencer's cover from last spring.

--Tim Fernholz

With Tom Daschle as secretary of Health and Human Services, it's safe to assume that some of the other policy working group leaders are also on the short lists --potentially, very short lists -- for cabinet positions. As Ezra writes, the news of Daschle at HHS, with a co-appointment to the White House as health policy adviser, is hugely encouraging to proponents of radical reform.

In comparison, the choice of Linda Darling-Hammond to lead the education working group is quite conservative. Not ideologically conservative, but rather, conservative in terms of what it says about Obama's plans for education. Groups like Democrats for Education Reform -- which favor charter schools and merit pay -- have been hoping for Obama to embrace their agenda. And indeed, early in the primaries, Obama was booed at a teachers' union event for saying he supported merit pay. But since he clinched the nomination, Obama's statements on education have been more circumspect. The appointment of Darling-Hammond, a teacher quality expert who opposes merit pay and is more critical than supportive of NCLB, signals that Obama wishes to avoid a fight with the unions. He'll spend his political capital on energy and health care instead.

All that said, Darling-Hammond, currently a Stanford professor, does have impressive qualifications and some great ideas. Known as a onetime harsh critic of Teach for America, she is absolutely correct to push for teacher recruitment reforms that professionalize the job and seek candidates ready to spend long careers in schools. She refers to education as a "civil right" and said on the campaign trail that the Obama team is committed to equalizing resources between poor and affluent schools. There may be education fights down the road in the Obama administration, but it's reductive to believe the only fight worth having is on merit pay, which pits certain progressive interest groups against one another. Darling-Hammond is unlikely to pick that particular fight -- but when it comes to school funding and other crucial issues, she'll be a powerful advocate on behalf of poor children.

--Dana Goldstein

Brian Beutler reports that the House steering committee has voted 25-22 to recommend Rep. Henry Waxman replace Rep. John Dingell as chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. It was a close vote, but still a surprising victory for the insurgent Waxman. Short background: Dingell and Waxman have clashed on climate change issues, with Dingell, who represents Detroit, supporting automakers and Waxman more intent on reform. ThinkProgress has a good breakdown here.

On the advice of some in-the-know sources, I had predicted earlier that Waxman would be in trouble when it comes to the full vote thanks to the more moderate character of the newer member classes, but I'd love to be wrong. Following up after today's vote, a few things come up:

One, the Steering Committee may not be as representative of the caucus as a whole as we like to think. Although Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been especially careful not to take a position on the fight, her close allies, like George Miller, are inclined to support Waxman. Pelosi allies obviously have an edge on the Steering Committee, which is made up of the various House leaders. A close win there could be a close loss for Waxman in the caucus.

Two, things have changed in the last five days, with Waxman's whip operation being much more aggressive in reaching out to members. Dingell, confined to a wheelchair, has not been courting members in gatherings like yesterday's leadership elections with as much energy as his challenger.

Three, hypothetical vote counting aside, tomorrow's vote is a secret ballot. Many members who might owe Dingell a favor or be somewhat worried about Waxman's approach might vote for a new chairman simply because, well, it's a change election. Whereas last week I was hearing nothing but bad news for Waxman, this week there has been shifting, with some people suggesting he may well pull it out. As Buetler notes, today's vote could well be a harbinger of that trend.

--Tim Fernholz

-

Mike Huckabee on The View, offers his reasons why gays haven't crossed "the civil rights threshold."

HUCKABEE: It’s a different set of rights. People who are homosexuals should have every right in terms of their civil rights, to be employed, to do anything they want. But that’s not really the issue. I know you talked about it and I think you got into it a little bit early on. But when we’re talking about a redefinition of an institution, that’s different than individual civil rights.

BEHAR: Well, segregation was an institution, too, in a way. It was right there on the books.

HUCKABEE: But here is the difference. Bull Connor was hosing people down in the streets of Alabama. John Lewis got his skull cracked on the Selma bridge.

Huckabee is taking advantage of a comparative overreach by people who explicitly compare the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement when the comparison isn't appropriate. Gays have actually been the been the targets of some very high profile violent attacks, (Ali Frick points to Harvey Milk, Matthew Shepard and Lawrence King, but there are many more) but the nature and historical contexts of each movement are very different. They are discrete experiences of oppression, and so should be discussed, when possible, without the crutch of an inappropriate comparison. The fight for LGBTQ rights is in and of itself just even without a historical link to the fight for black rights.

Nor does it really matter. Huckabee did not have to get hosed down or his skull cracked to have the right to marry his wife, and instituting some arbitrary threshold of violence that non-heterosexuals have to meet before they can claim the same rights as all other citizens is fundamentally un-American.

But Huckabee is a shrewd fellow who is well versed in the civil rights movement, and seems to have a rapport with black folks most Republicans lack. It's no secret that some Republicans believe their opportunity to drive a wedge in the progressive coalition lies within the conservative religious beliefs of minorities. So his aim here is to make the argument not about whether the denial of marriage rights to gays are unjust, but whether gays have really suffered as much as black folks in the pursuit of their rights. It is an attempt to start a whole new kind of culture war between blacks and gays over the authenticity of suffering in the aftermath of tensions over Prop 8.

The problem with Huckabee's reasoning is that no one should have to suffer in claiming the rights that should be afforded to them as American citizens. Huckabee recognizes the nobility of black folks who fought to be recognized as human beings and full citizens without acknowledging the underlying fact that the hypocrisy of American bigotry made that fight necessary. And it still does. There's no need for a scorecard of assaults to make the case for gay rights, gay people have earned their rights simply by virtue of being American citizens. It shouldn't take the vile intolerance of a Bull Connor to make that obvious.

--A. Serwer

The Obama-Biden transition announces it's policy team leaders today, list below and bios after the jump:

Economic: Daniel K. Tarullo

Education: Linda Darling-Hammond

Energy and Environment: Carol M. Browner

Health Care: Senator Tom Daschle

Immigration: T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Mariano-Florentino (Tino) Cuéllar

National Security: James B. Steinberg, Dr. Susan E. Rice

Technology, Innovation and Government Reform: Sonal Shah, Julius Genachowski, Blair Levin

These folks are essentially in charge of taking Obama's campaign promises and turning them into actionable public policy, in part by determining whether the appropriate route is legislative or administrative. Not a lot of surprises on the list; Daschle has been awaiting his chance at health care for a while now, Steinberg and Rice are expected to be National Security Advisor and Deputy, and Tarullo has been advising the Obama campaign for some time now on international economic issues. Techies will be impressed with Google's Shah. And Darling-Hammond may be a disappointment for education reformers, who have been unhappy with her "conventional" views on issues like merit pay, according to Time magazine.

-- Tim Fernholz

P.S. A lil' love for my Alma Mater's law school, with Tarullo and Aleinikoff both hailing from Georgetown. Hoya Saxa, your life is awesome.

MORE...

Andy McCarthy's dissatisfaction with the Iraq SOFA agreement has been earning some contempt, but like Eric Martin I found it rather refreshing. Unlike so many of his conservative brethren, McCarthy realizes that what the Bush administration has wrought is defeat; no permanent bases, a democracy that's shaky at best, an Iraqi populace that despises the United States, and an improved strategic situation for Iran. At a time when the conservative blogosphere is shaking its little fists and shrieking "VICTORY!!11!!!11", McCarthy's stance amounts to a relatively clear-headed voice of reason.

--Robert Farley

One thing about this whole economic stimulus postponement is that there are still people out there worried about footing the bill for the necessary investment programs needed to beat the current recession. Though a majority on the left have bought into the reasonable idea of short-term deficit spending to beat a recession followed by a longer term approach to a balanced budget and paying down the debt. But there are folks (Tom Brokaw among them) who seem to think that between the financial rescue bill and any moderate stimulus that may come down the pike before Jan. 20, the new administration’s fiscal hands will be tied. Not so! Yesterday, I saw a briefing by John Irons of EPI, and here are some of his graphs for our edification.

The above graph charts deficits from 1955 to 2008. Note: The deficit in 1992 was much larger, as a percentage of GDP, than the deficit that Obama will inherit. Not even to mention the Reagan deficits of the nineteen eighties.

This graph shows a more relevant measure, the federal debt held by the public as a share of the overall economy. (The future numbers are just estimates). The current debt level is below the average of the last 65 years and the average of the 1990s. An increase in debt would not create an unstable economic situation.

This last graph doesn’t really have much to do with our argument but I think it’s interesting to track the tax revenue from corporations as opposed to other revenue streams. Social insurance taxes clearly provide more revenue than corporate taxes, which seems more than a little regressive.

Anyways, Irons says that between current spending levels, the financial rescue bill, and a weakening economy, a deficit of 5 percent of GDP is possible in 2009. But part of this deficit comes from the struggling economy (he estimates $370 billion), and we can expect to gain back a good part of our investments from the rescue bill. Ultimately, given that debt levels are at historical norms and that we can expect to see two to three years of weakness in the labor market, Irons concludes that, “the current fiscal situation should not be seen as a critical barrier to expanded investments in the economy.”

Whew!

--Tim Fernholz

An anonymous group of anti-choicers are trying to derail Michael "Drill, Baby, Drill" Steele's campaign for RNC chair, reports David Brody. Now, this is strange. Michael Steele identifies as pro-life and, during his failed Senate race, was endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee. And not only is he a pro-lifer, he's an African American pro-lifer. That's important to Christian conservatives, who teach their children that black babies are the primary victims of the abortion "genocide." The movement regularly likens abortion to slavery.

So what's the problem with Steele? Apparently, the issue is his former membership in the socially moderate Republican Leadership Council, which he founded with former Senator and U.N. Ambassador John Danforth, who opposes abortion rights, and Christine Todd Whitman, who supports them. The RLC accepts debate and disagreement on social issues, and believes the Republican Party should do the same:

RLC-PAC's vision is a Republican Party that is unified by the basic tenets of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, but that allows for diverse opinions on social issues by its members.

RLC-PAC members consider themselves True Conservative Republicans. Republicans who believe that our elected officials have a responsibility to their constituents to spend their money wisely. We believe that government should have a limited role in American’s personal lives. And we believe in a strong national defense.

We'll have to wait and see if this campaign against Steele sticks. The attack is already up and running on the most prominent anti-choice websites.

--Dana Goldstein

Al Qaeda plays a little identity politics:

In al-Qaida's first response to Obama's victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect, along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, "house negroes."

Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as "house negroes."

The message also includes old footage of speeches by Malcolm X in which he explains the term, saying black slaves who worked in their white masters' house were more servile than those who worked in the fields. Malcolm X used the term to criticize black leaders he accused of not standing up to whites.

The best part about this is that a knee-jerk patriotic response implicitly rejects the notion of black American culture as oppositional by definition. And doing so is an act of solidarity with the future President of the United States!

There's been a lot of skepticism about an Obama victory shifting the Muslim world's view of the United States, but judging by this statement at the very least it's made Al Qaeda's efforts to develop a compelling rhetorical indictment of America visibly more difficult.

--A. Serwer

In an article from our forthcoming print issue, Dayo Olopade reviews the mound of briefing books various groups have prepared in attempt to set a policy agenda for president-elect Obama:

No fewer than 20 progressive think tanks, issue groups, media outlets, and ad-hoc coalitions have already or will soon release presidential transition plans. These open letters to the next president boast sweeping and ambitious titles: "Investing in America's Future"; Mandate for Change; "Opportunity '08"; Rebooting America; "Making Sense"; "Transitions in Governance" -- as do their sponsors: the Campaign for America's Future, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Progressive Policy Institute, the New America Foundation, USAction, the journal Democracy, the Brookings Institution. Even the Heritage Foundation has a "to-do list." (Don't try to mix and match.) "There will be dozens and dozens of these things," says Peter Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute once rumored to be on the shortlist for a McCain Cabinet.

And Sarah Posner has the latest on the religious right:

In the bowels of the Ritz-Carlton in downtown Washington last Friday, as the G20 met across town and the Republican Governors' Association assembled in Florida, the activist elites of the conservative movement gathered to plot their resurgence. The Council for National Policy (CNP), founded in the early 1980s by the power brokers who brought together cold warriors, moral majoritarians, John Birchers, dispensationalists, anti-government libertarians, free-enterprise zealots, and national-security hawks under one roof, has long been the incubator for the conservative movement's political strategy, and an essential stop for Republican presidential aspirants.

As always, subscribe to our RSS feed to receive our articles as soon as they are published.

--The Editors

If Newsweek's Michael Isikoff is correct that Obama has offered Eric Holder the attorney general appointment, there will be musings about what will become of the two women rumored to have been on the shortlist for the job, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan.

When it comes to Napolitano, whom I profiled for our July print issue, in-the-know Democrats will see this as for the best. If she were to leave Arizona before her term expires in 2010, the Republican secretary of state, Jan Brewer, would become governor. With Arizona seen as a key state in the emerging Democratic majority, national Democrats don't want this to happen. Instead, Napolitano will likely serve out her term and make a play for John McCain's Senate seat in 2010. (Yesterday, McCain said he is planning on running for re-election). Brewer will run for governor, possibly against Democrat Phil Gordon, the mayor of Phoenix. Another Arizonan with gubernatorial hopes is Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio,  a Republican known for his harsh, almost nativist stance toward immigrants.

As for Kagan, she could still be tapped for a high-up Justice Department position, or potentially even the Supreme Court.

--Dana Goldstein

• As expected, Joe Lieberman will be staying in the Democratic caucus and retaining his Homeland Security chair, his only punishment being the loss of the chairmanship of a less consequential subcommittee. According to Howard Dean, this was largely the result of the intervention of Barack Obama -- the DNC chair said Obama "called the shots, and that's fine." I'd say that both Marc Ambinder and Mike Tomasky have the right take on this: The Democratic/Obama agenda is too big to waste time on the relatively minor issue of Lieberman and to understand the nature of the Lieberman dilemma is to understand Senate itself -- a very exclusive club that doesn't take expulsion lightly.
  
• The Washington Post has a great piece on Bush administration appointees "burrowing" into non-political positions within the federal bureaucracy, making them very difficult to remove.
• Michael Isikoff reports in Newsweek that Obama has decided to name Washington lawyer and former Clinton deputy AG Eric Holder for Attorney General. Tim and Adam have more on the pros and cons of a Holder appointment. Meanwhile, Jake Tapper calls Hillary Clinton for SoS almost a done deal, citing Democratic sources who say the formal announcement could come as early as next week. Glenn Thrush is more cautious, saying Clinton is "conflicted" over the decision.
• Mark Murray reports that Chuck Schumer will step down from his post as head of the DSCC and be replaced by heir-apparent Bob Menendez. On the other side of the aisle, Carrie Dann reports, "Big Bad" John Cornyn will ascend to top of the NRSC.
• As Georgia gears up for a runoff rumble between Saxby Chambliss and Jim Martin, the state continues to host high-profile surrogates, including Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Mitt Romney. Early voting has begun in the state, even drawing some lines at polling stations.
• Barack Obama made a surprise video appearance at the Governors Global Climate Summit, promising action and urging cooperation.
• Beau Biden, long groomed to replace his father in the Delaware Senate, has declined to fill the vacancy, even as he prepares for a tour in Iraq. Chris Cillizza has a roundup of the possible replacements on the Dem bench and potential Republican challengers.
• And finally, Sarah Palin is the first confirmed speaker at the 2009 CPAC convention in Washington D.C.. Based on what I saw at CPAC this year, she's likely to achieve demigod status amongst the participants next February.

--Mori Dinauer

Whatever one makes of conflicting media reports regarding the Obama Administration's likely position on torture, if Michael Isikoff is correct in reporting that Eric Holder will be the new Attorney General it's probably a good sign that Obama really does intend to abandon the Bush torture policy.

Via Spencer Ackerman, Mark Halperin provides a release from the American Constitution Society highlighting Holder's record:

Eric H. Holder Jr., Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration, asserted in a speech to the American Constitution Society (ACS) that the United States must reverse “the disastrous course” set by the Bush administration in the struggle against terrorism by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, declaring without qualification that the U.S. does not torture people, ending the practice of transferring individuals involuntarily to countries that engage in torture and ceasing warrantless domestic surveillance.

“Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the ‘War on Terror' have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe,” Holder told a packed room at the ACS 2008 Convention on Friday evening. “For the sake of our safety and security, and because it is the right thing to do, the next president must move immediately to reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights.”

“We owe the American people a reckoning. It is our responsibility as citizens to preserve and protect our constitution… Let me be clear: I firmly believe that there is evil in the world, and that we still face grave dangers to our security. But our ability to lead the world in combatting these dangers depends not only on the strength of our military leadership but our moral leadership as well. … To recapture it, we can no longer allow ourselves to be ruled by fear. We must evaluate our policies and our practices in the harsh light of day and steel ourselves to face the world’s dangers in accord with the rule of law.”

Pretty good stuff. Of course, Isikoff may be jumping the gun. If that's the case, hopefully Holder's views on torture are consistent with the other candidates being considered.

Michael Isikoff says Eric Holder will be the Obama administration's Attorney General. Isikoff is a well-sourced fellow, but I still take this with a large grain of salt -- and urge you to do the same -- as the Newsweek macher also mentions that Holder has not been vetted yet, and a lot can happen during that process. Others close to the transition team say to be cautious, and the transition itself has no comment.

But, let's consider the facts. Holder has been on everyone's radar for the position, as he's got the experience (Clinton Deputy AG, appointed a Judge by Ronald Reagan), the private practice chops (Covington & Burling partner) and the Obama loyalty -- he headed, along with Caroline Kennedy, Obama's Vice-Presidential search, arguably one of the most successful parts of the presidential campaign.

Drawbacks? Well, Holder did play a minor negative role in the controversial Marc Rich pardon situation, but reports suggest that's a sin of omission rather than commission. Which, admittedly, will not prevent Senate Republicans from going off on the topic during his confirmation hearings.

Benefits? Most important, Holder seems like he would do a good job in the position; Dylan Matthews notes via e-mail that he's a strong opponent of torture and other Bush administration overreaches. It's a prominent position for an African-American in the cabinet. And it frees up other potential Attorney General nominees, specifically Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano and Alabama Representative Artur Davis, for either another cabinet post (Napolitano is also mentioned for Homeland Security) or, more likely at this point, running for Senate (or maybe Governor, in Davis' case) in their respective states in 2010, continuing to deepen the Democratic bench and improve the Senate majority.

What do you all think about Holder?

-- Tim Fernholz

This week's round-up considers alternative health care models, the immigrant experience in Philadelphia, forthcoming Defense budget fights and leading indicators of our economic crisis. In short, TTR runs the gamut!

• With comparison comes revelation. The journal Health Affairs published a study last week that surveyed chronically ill adults in the U.S. and seven other industrialized nations (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the U.K.). It compared their experiences of hospitalization or serious illness among a range of insurance designs and primary care models. U.S. patients were at a particularly high risk of forgoing recommended care -- like taking medicine or scheduling specialized appointments -- because of costs. They also experienced less efficient, poorly-organized care; and had to cope with more errors, such as getting the wrong medication or failing to receive prompt notice of abnormal test results. The report, highlighting the need for revision of the U.S. system, concludes with suggested innovations for improving patient outcomes everywhere. -- DH
• Illadelphia studies. Brookings digested thirty-plus years of research in a new report on immigration to Philadelphia. The key finding -- as in most reports on recent immigration trends -- is that foreign-born residents have swollen the metropolitan area in the 21st century. But instead of belaboring the stresses this can cause a city, the authors emphasize immigrants' "infusion of cosmopolitanism" and encourage the development of city infrastructure to better serve this burgeoning population. With special sections on refugees, South Philly, suburbia, health workers, and taxi drivers, this 40-pager explains why, how, when, from where, and what it means that immigration took hold of once-Anglo Philadelphia. -- CP
• Good cop, bad cop [PDF]. In a Center for Strategic and International Studies report, Anthony Cordesman and Hans Kaeser delve into the defense budgetary crisis that President-elect Obama will inevitably face. The Bush administration has more or less neglected the increased costs of manpower, maintenance, procurement, and contracts that naturally accompany engagement in two wars. The authors conclude that Obama's fiscal program will presumably involve axing (or scalpeling, if you will) large portions of the defense budget, much to the chagrin of many in the defense community. The Army's Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH), the Air Force's Transformational Communications Satellite (TSAT), the Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter (CSAR), and the Aerial Refueling Tanker (KC-X) are four specific contract programs (totaling almost $70 billion) that will likely face downsizing due to funding cuts. These cuts should not be interpreted as defense cuts; rather, they will be attempts to clean up the "current administration's unfinished business." -- SW
• Movin' on up [PDF]. Income inequality matters, but economic mobility -- the increase in economic status over a lifetime -- is what you have to keep your eye on, according to a recent report from the Urban Institute. Even with income inequality rivaling that of the 1920s, the report argues that disparities in opportunities may be more powerfully reflected by the stagnation in economic mobility. The study shows that both relative and absolute mobility have remained essentially the same for the past two decades, even as the economy has undergone serious transformations and extended periods of high growth that have been particularly rewarding for the wealthiest Americans. -- ZA
  

--TAP Staff

Previous Round-Ups:
11/12/08
11/4/08

This morning's activity was a Campaign for America's Future-sponsored speaker series about public investments that included a number of interesting folks, including Representative Keith Ellison and economist James Galbraith. Predictably enough, both speakers discussed the importance of increased investment in infrastructure to rebuilding the economy and rebuilding our country. (Here's an EPI report [PDF] talking about what that would look like.) While the numbers are large -- and getting larger -- the economic crisis makes them extremely necessary. I'll also have a post -- with graphs! -- that explains why it won't be a huge deficit problem, either.

Galbraith's keynote speech was quite good, dealing with the causes of the economic crisis and what kind of work needs to be done to fix it. Some of the ideas are familiar -- a moratorium on home foreclosures for example -- and others more novel, like lowering the medicareaid entrance age to 55, which would move health care costs of the books of corporations like GM and onto the public roll. He also suggested increasing social security benefits and state-federal revenue sharing, two approaches that have not been used since the era of that dreaded liberal, Richard Nixon.

"I have already spent somewhere in the range of $400 to $450 billion without breaking a sweat," he said at one point in the discussion, "I tell you it won’t be enough. ... Suspend half the pay-roll tax. Let the government pay it for the next five years. ...This is not a time to be nervous about big numbers. Let’s now look beyond this year and ask what we have to do going forward. [What is required is] Public action on a sustained as well as substantial and speedy basis."

He also raised an interesting point I hadn't heard before on the subject of Amity Shlaes and other New Deal revisionists (for an authoritative video smackdown, see here). Referencing Richard Cohen's column today, Galbraith mentioned that the problem with Shlaes research is that she deliberately does not include public employees in her unemployment figures. Which is to say, she says the New Deal failed because it didn't lower the unemployment rate, and she can say that because she doesn't count all of the people hired by the government for public works projects as employed. Galbraith observed that, "Those who got up to work on the Tri-Borough bridge for years were very much under the illusion they were employed. And it was not a bridge to nowhere."

Bad news: None of the members of congress present, nor any that I've spoken to, are optimistic about passing anything before January 20.

--Tim Fernholz

UPDATE: The inimitable Eric Rauchway writes to note he's been on the Shlaes beat for sometime, and has a more comprehensive assessment of the revisionist approach to the New Deal, including the gaming-the-numbers explanation I hadn't heard before today. Shows what I know ...

I know I'm obsessing, but with this looking more and more likely, it's worth taking a step back to consider just how huge this is. Secretary of State is arguably the most prominent and prestigious Cabinet position. Potentially, it's a more powerful job than the vice presidency, and indeed, it's the role Joe Biden was supposedly lusting after. Those who argued Hillary should have been Obama's running mate -- and were so disappointed that she wasn't seriously vetted -- probably had little inkling that the Obama team had something like this in mind for her.

--Dana Goldstein

Barack Obama has promised an office of urban policy, but what will it look like? Dana explains:

There is a certain vogue gathering around urban issues. No -- not inner city poverty, crime, or joblessness -- but, rather, those issues that might broadly be described as ones of "human geography." Where do people live, where do they work, and how should they travel between the two? How can resources, ranging from good schools to public transit to clean air, be more fairly allocated within regions?

Such questions have long been the provenance of a small group of left planning theorists such as James Howard Kunstler and Jane Jacobs. Their calls for denser, urban development were motivated as much by aesthetic concerns as by economic and environmental ones. And while it's certainly true that strip malls and parking lots are eyesores, and that old buildings are often prettier than new ones, critics weren't totally off the mark when they accused these thinkers of snobbishness; of a certain lack of compassion for the typical postwar middle class family, lured by cheap real estate and good schools into a vastly expanding suburbia.

--The Editors

I've said that I'm cautiously optimistic about the likelihood that the Obama Administration will end Bush's policy of "enhanced interrogations," although less so since learning about Obama adviser John Brennan's past and his potential role in the Obama Administration. At the same time, I've argued that people shouldn't jump to the conclusion that he won't prohibit torture on the basis of conflicting press reports, as Eugene Robinson seems to assume today:

Obama's clarity on the issues of Guantanamo and torture stands in contrast to his necessary vagueness about how he will deal with the economic crisis. Torture is wrong today and will still be wrong tomorrow, whereas today's economic panacea can be tomorrow's drop in the bucket. Who would have thought that these "war on terror" issues would be the easy part for the new president?

Bush was just as "clear" in his public statements about torture declaring famously "we do not torture...we will aggressively pursue [terrorists], but we will do so under the law." The point is that public statements are important for drawing lines but are meaningless unless the same hard lines are drawn in policy and practice. To give Obama credit for having ended a policy of torture before he takes office is just as silly as claiming unequivocally that he has no intention of doing so. Giving Obama credit for doing the right thing before he does it eliminates the ability of torture opponents to pressure Obama to, in fact, do the right thing.

--A. Serwer</