Who's He Gonna Choose?

I'm pretty certain I never attended a whit at this point in the election cycle in the past to who the next electee was appointing to the cabinet and/or staff. I wonder if I will ever be able to return to such a state of ignorance, trust, or innocence. It ain't gonna happen soon, from what I can tell. I sense a distinct need for citizen self-education and involvement. We dare not any longer let our government try to run itself without the critical input of the citizenry. That doesn't work.

I instinctively had strong negative reactions to a couple of the first names floated and even officially in one case now destined for key Obama role. But I'm working on that open-mindedness, mind you, and in that spirit have uncovered counter-arguments for both Messrs Emanuel and Summers.

As for Mr. Rahm, I was quite annoyed with his role in thwarting good-spirited actually liberal and progressive candidates in 2006, in favor of semi-scumbag center-right Democrats-in-name-only (most proceeding to lose their elections). I believe he tried to play bully with Mr. Dean, he of the 50-states campaign (which Rahm I believe mocked) that I have to feel was a big catalyst for the success this week. So the history there is far from uniformly good. He is notoriously hard-charging and, at least in this relative innocent's impression, a product of the Democratic Machine, whatever the hell that might mean.

I offer first the coverage of the NY Times, somewhat gray/bland, as we used to want it:

President-elect Barack Obama said Thursday afternoon that he selected Representative Rahm Emanuel, a fierce and consummate navigator of the capital’s political terrain, as his chief of staff because he has “deep insights into the challenging economic issues that will be front and center for our administration.”

“I announce this appointment first because the chief of staff is central to the ability of a president and administration to accomplish an agenda,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “And no one I know is better at getting things done than Rahm Emanuel.”

A veteran of the Clinton administration and a fellow member of Congress from Illinois, Mr. Emanuel has been a close adviser to Mr. Obama. He informed Mr. Obama of his decision on Thursday morning, saying he would step down as the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives to help guide the Obama administration.

“Now is a time for unity,” Mr. Emanuel said. “I will do everything in my power to help you stitch together the frayed fabric of our politics, and help summon Americans of both parties to unite in common purpose.”

In a statement, he added: “Like the record amount of voters who cast their ballot over the last month, I want to do everything I can to help deliver the change America needs. We have work to do, and Tuesday Americans sent Washington a clear message — get the job done.”

-clip-

The selection of Mr. Emanuel, known by some as “Rahmbo” because of his toughness, was met with criticism by some Republican lawmakers. The House minority leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, said in a statement, “This is an ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil and govern from the center.”

But Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who campaigned strenuously for his close friend Senator McCain called it “a wise choice.”

“Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills,” Senator Graham said in a statement.

He added: “He’s tough but fair. Honest, direct, and candid. These qualities will serve President-elect Obama well.”

-clip-

That somewhat mollifies me, I admit. John Nichols at the Nation (h/t Common Dreams) gets closer to my concerns but also helps me manage my dander:

House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican insiders in Washington are griping about President-elect Barack Obama's selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to serve as White House chief of staff. Emanuel, they complain, is too partisan.

If only that were the case.

Partisan true believers stand strong for the ideals and principles of a party, they want to follow the dictates of the platform and stay in tune with grassroots activists.

That's not a description of Rahm Emanuel.

In fact, Emanuel is the opposite of a partisan. He is someone who has worked very hard for a very long time - first in the Clinton administration and then in Congress -- to change the Democratic party into a more cautious, centrist and compromised institution. As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, he actually undercut efforts by progressive candidates who had a chance to win in order to advance the candidacies of more conservative candidates who lost.

Why? Because on the most vital issues--economic and trade policy, war and peace, civil liberties--this true believer in the worst compromises of the Clinton era has frequently been at odds with labor and progressive forces within the party.

So how worried should Democrats who want change they can believe in be about Obama's decision to make Emanuel the face of the transition process?

Emanuel is best understood as a disappointing choice rather than a definitional selection.
If Emanuel was in line for a key Cabinet position (Treasury, Commerce, Labor or Agriculture), or for the job of US Trade Representative, there would be every reason to fret. In fact, it might well be appropriate to openly and aggressively challenge the appointment of someone so at odds with Democratic values and policy goals to any of those posts.

But a White House chief of staff is not, traditionally, a policy maker or implementer. Rather, the chief of staff is the member of the president's inner circle who gets things done. A chief of staff who goes against the president's instincts or goals, or who cannot work with people who hold views different from his own, does not last long.

Rahm Emanuel - whose selection owes more to shared Chicago connections than to shared ideology -- is not being brought on to define the Obama administration.

It is Barack Obama's job to do that. Emanuel's job is to make sure that what the president wants done actually gets done. He's good at that, and that is why the new president picked the congressman from his hometown.

Obama wanted someone he knew well, someone he had worked with in the past and someone who he was sure could get the job done to serve as his chief of staff.

He gets all that with Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. But Emanuel is not going to be the president, Obama is. And if this administration adopts Emanuel's compromised positions, it will not be the fault of the chief of staff. It will be the fault of the president.

And then there is Larry Summers, apparently a candidate for Treasury. The last I heard of him he had been chased out of Cambridge for serious abridgement of gender-sensitivity. I took it seriously and had the sense that despite having attained a prominent academic platform for a spell, he had the people-skills of a tarantula. Josh adds on here:

Am I missing something or are there like four or five completely independent reasons not to appoint Larry Summers Treasury Secretary? I'm really having a hard time understanding this one.

Just at the level of optics, since the economy is issue number one right now (and not just the real economy of jobs and living standards but the financial architecture itself) and you're trying to look forward not back, why would you pick someone for Treasury who was not only in the Clinton administration but was actually Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration. Not understanding that.

Next, management shortcomings and controversial statements about women's brains that got him canned as President of Harvard.

And on top of that, the new Treasury Secretary will be charged with instituting a beefed up framework of financial sector regulation. But Summers was a key player in the 1990s deregulatory consensus that laid the groundwork for a lot of these problems. Not that that makes him verboten -- a lot of other people did too. But it does create an element of of cognitive dissonance going into the job.

I'm not sure any of these strikes against would be determinative in themselves. Perhaps each taken together would not be if the crisis of the moment demanded Summers. But is he really the only one available?

I don't mean that in a snarky or denigrating sense. Clearly, Summers is an extremely bright and accomplished guy and a highly respected economist. But really, he's the only person with the economist chops and political instincts to manage this arduous task?

But then there's this (oh that damned "on the other hand" thing!). Freaking nuances, subtleties, and context and all that crap; I thought they were officially abolished once-and-for-all back in September of 2001. I don't feel I can do less than take it at face value (and, ok, it does have that "Huffingpost" stamp!):

Larry has been a true advocate for women throughout his career. In 1992, as Chief Economist of the World Bank, Larry argued in front of the world's Finance Ministers that the highest return investment they could make in their economies was to educate their girls. Through his work, girls' education became a focus for development experts and a topic not just in education ministries, but in financial ministries worldwide.

I first met Larry when I was a junior at Harvard. A friend and I were forming a new student organization, Women in Economics and Government, to encourage women to major in these subjects. We told all of our professors of our efforts and of all of them, the one who helped us the most was Larry. He served as our champion and helped rally the support of his fellow professors behind our efforts. The following year, when I wanted to write my senior thesis on the economics of spousal abuse, Larry volunteered to be my advisor because he recognized the importance of the issue.

I went on to work for him both at the World Bank and at Treasury. At the World Bank, he was a tireless advocate for girls' education. At Treasury, he fought for social security benefits for women working in their homes, better enforcement of child support obligations, and an expansion of child care tax credits. And through all of these years, he was a supportive and deeply caring mentor for me and many other women who had the opportunity to work for him.

Larry has been attacked by some in the women's community for remarks he made about women's abilities. As he has acknowledged himself, this speech was a real mistake. What few seem to note is that it is remarkable that he was giving the speech in the first place - that he cared enough about women's careers and their trajectory in the fields of math and science to proactively analyze the issues and talk about what was going wrong. To conclude that he communicated poorly -- and even insensitively -- is fair. To conclude that he is opposed to progress for women overlooks the fact that improving this progress was precisely the subject he was addressing.

Many people note that our nation has few economists with his intelligence. They should also know that we have few leaders, if any, in the financial world who have done more for women.

So I'm doing what I can to deal with my issues on those two. Here are what seem like two more great impromptu suggestions from the void. Remember the Office of Legal Counsel? I'd heard of it, I guess, but never realized what a critical role it played (or cesspool it could be) until the last couple years:

To be perfectly honest, I don't care all that much who Barack Obama chooses to appoint to the multitude of positions that now have to be filled. I'm confident that he'll choose competent people who generally share his views, at least with respect to the area of government under their charge.

I will make one suggestion, though. Obama should consider appointing Georgetown Law Professor (and prolific legal blogger) Marty Lederman to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

As we saw with the Bush administration, the OLC is a tremendously powerful office. It functions as the chief internal arbiter of legality within the executive branch. After 9/11, John Yoo used his perch at the OLC to authorize a number of illegal activities--from torture to warrantless surveillance--that are not only deeply troubling but have badly damaged America's image in the world. Yoo was allowed to do most of this because the head of the OLC at the time, Jay Bybee, was not familiar with the relevant executive power issues and therefore allowed Yoo to run amok.

To be perfectly honest, I don't care all that much who Barack Obama chooses to appoint to the multitude of positions that now have to be filled. I'm confident that he'll choose competent people who generally share his views, at least with respect to the area of government under their charge.I will make one suggestion, though. Obama should consider appointing Georgetown Law Professor (and prolific legal blogger) Marty Lederman to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.As we saw with the Bush administration, the OLC is a tremendously powerful office. It functions as the chief internal arbiter of legality within the executive branch. After 9/11, John Yoo used his perch at the OLC to authorize a number of illegal activities--from torture to warrantless surveillance--that are not only deeply troubling but have badly damaged America's image in the world. Yoo was allowed to do most of this because the head of the OLC at the time, Jay Bybee, was not familiar with the relevant executive power issues and therefore allowed Yoo to run amok.

When Jack Goldsmith took over the OLC in 2003, he discovered--to his horror--that a multitude of Bush administration programs rested on entirely indefensible legal opinions drafted by the OLC during his predecessor's tenure. He was forced to walk most of them back, a move that caused a major internal dispute within the Bush administration and nearly resulted in the total implosion of the administration just prior to the 2004 election.

-clip-

Professor Lederman is exactly the sort of person I would want in charge of this important task. First, he's deeply familiar with all of the relevant executive power issues, having written about them extensively over the last few years. He is also intimately familiar with the workings of the OLC, having worked there from 1994-2002. And most importantly, I think Lederman has a good sense of what the OLC's role should be (i.e., not merely rubber-stamping whatever the president wants to do).

-clip-

And bmaz at Firedoglake has a terrific suggestion for Attorney General (I wince at the last name, based on hard-core neo college classmate, hopefully no connection):

The election is nigh 24 hours in the bank, and the rumor wires and scuttlebutt are exploding with discussion of the makeup of President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet and staff to be. Attorney General is a critical post in any administration; but perhaps at no time in the history of the United States as important as at this moment.

The thankless task of recreating the once shining star that was the Department of Justice will take a special skill set from the person chosen to be the next AG. DOJ Main is a festering mess; stocked with Cheney/Bush political lackeys and consiglieri, unqualified and inexperienced Regent plants, and literal criminals that have aided and abetted the evisceration of our Constitution and commission of torture and other war crimes.

A department of expediency over honesty and integrity was grown by the Bushies. From DOJ Main down through the line level career prosecutors in the various District US Attorney Offices, credibility and trust have been felled. The once shining continuity of impartiality, justice and rule of law is in dysfunctional chaos.

Janet Napolitano is the right person, the best qualified and most suited, by far, to meet the daunting challenge ahead at Attorney General.

Napolitano is well versed and experienced with constitutional law and civil rights, having been mentored as the hand picked protege of one of the country’s great Constitutional scholars and authorities, John P. Frank, one of the two legal fathers of the Miranda decision. She has sizable long term experience not only as the Arizona Attorney General (a huge office), but also as chief executive of an entire state government as Arizona Governor. Of critical significance, she was the US Attorney for the District of Arizona for six years under President Clinton, prior to her terms in state office as Arizona's AG and Governor.

-clip-

Ungawa!

How many ways can you say "wow"? That was a true shocker last night, after so many prior recent slung-out, drug-out election nights. I was resigned to not only having numerous flip-flops but also lots of late-night never-properly-documented equivocation and eventual outcome that seemed to have nothing to do with the prior hours of coverage I was so heavily invested in. This was different. Once they played Taps for the western-most polls, the networks wasted no time in calling it for the Good Guys. Presumably, like Olbermann, they had the math down well ahead of that milestone (and apparently the confidence in their stats - though it continued to bother me when they called races with 5% or less of the voting tallied) well before the time they called it. I don't recall the timeline when Keith schooled his co-hosts over the numbers (I think he got gently rebuked for jeweler precision or something), but I believe it preceded last poll closures, hence was un-PC, but was a perfect foreshadowing of the blockbuster we heard 5-10 minutes later.

How many folks do you know who paid no attention to the election results last night? Obviously, there are those w/o access or with handicaps or limitations that could interfere with them attending to the election, but otherwise it's hard to imagine a sentient being so cold or stoic or something that they would be doing something else last night unless previously (even then, truly numb-skulled) scheduled. Aside of course from the 20% or so of us who are reportedly authoritarians and need a dominating figure in charge and hence will vote for a Bush or a McSame every time regardless of all other factors. The least-dull of those dimwits might have found some excuse for not paying attention.

While I was in the canvass line at local Obama outpost yesterday, I noticed the three women in front of me getting acquainted and eventually agreeing to team up. Slightly to my consternation, I was also solicited once they realized I was a solo act. But actually that was fine with me, although there is no scenario in which I could have stuck my nose into their happy female confabulation (and, frankly, it's a long shot that I could have vouch-safed idea of teaming up with strangers like this).

Long story semi-short, we took off with 160 or so addresses to knock on to remind -leaners to vote. I recount this for serendipity; adding to positive vibes from having been "propositioned" by my mates, I eventually learned that our driver's daughter was HS classmate of my daughter.

We stumbled through 60 or so addresses before having to jettison half our team, who had other issues to deal with. Two-some was actually much more efficient. At mid-day we stopped by partner's mother's place for a bit of nourishment, a great semi-ramshackle classic bohemian adorned with mom's eye-catching glasswork and other wonderful decor (mom is 91, lives alone, and is a Chihully acolyte). Sure enough, there on the fridge were pics confirming recognition of my daughter's classmate.

Meanwhile, the forecast of showers and such had turned to encore Indian Summer. Despite our trepidation, there were only a couple folks who were not Change candidates. Mostly "Not Homes" and "I Already Voted for Obama's." Lots of perturbed dogs guarding their turf. They had no way through the door of sensing my adoration of the canine spirit. All in all, a great collection of positive signals leading into the primal evening happenings.

Having spent six instead of planned three hours on this, my conscience was fully succored - and my head was in a very encouraged state from all the positive buzz. You know the rest! After dinner we dropped into informal party hosted by Marg's co-worker. Yee-haw!. Let's just say that John is a lot less inhibited than I when it comes to setting off major (illegal) fireworks in the city!

But back to the business at hand. There is every indication that this ballot all by it's lonesome has done a lot to restore our standing in the world. There are numerous newspaper editorials and all sorts of other evidence that our friends in other places are thrilled that we collectively came to this result. Just one example:

They did it. They really did it. So often crudely caricatured by others, the American people yesterday stood in the eye of history and made an emphatic choice for change for themselves and the world. Though bombarded by a blizzard of last-minute negative advertising that should shame the Republican party, American voters held their nerve and elected Barack Obama as their new president to succeed George Bush. Elected him, what is more, by a clearer majority than one of those bitter narrow margins that marked the last two elections.

Having snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in 2000 and 2004 it felt at times fated that the Democrats would somehow complete a hat-trick of failures on election day 2008. Instead, fuelled by unprecedented financial support, the key things went right for them yesterday, from the moment just after midnight when Dixville Notch voted 15 to six for Mr Obama (the first time the early-voting New Hampshire hamlet had gone for a Democrat in 40 years), through to the early Obama success last night in the prized swing state of Pennsylvania and on into the battleground areas of middle America.

In the last two presidential elections, the American people divided down the middle, producing a both a geographical and a demographic divide that seemed increasingly set in stone. Blue Democratic America consisted of the west and the east coasts plus the upper Midwest. Red Republican America covered the swaths in between. Women, minorities, the poor and the highly educated voted Democratic. Men, white people, the rich and the religious delivered for the Republicans. In the mind of Mr Bush's strategist Karl Rove this division was the template of 21st century American politics, a base for a conservative counter-attack against 20th-century liberalism.

Rove's America was not just turned on its head yesterday. It was broken up and recast in a very different mould. One of Mr Obama's many achievements has been his refusal to accept the permanence of the blue-red divide. He has reached out across the divide to states and voters that the embattled Democratic party of the Reagan-Bush years had forgotten about, places like the South and the Rockies, voters like farmers and small business people.

With the Democrats powerfully consolidating their position in both houses of Congress yesterday, the shift was consolidated at state and district level. This marks the end of the conservative ascendancy of the past 30 years. Whether it now marks a new, sustained era of American liberalism of the sort which followed the election of 1932 must remain to be seen. What is not open to doubt is that Mr Obama's win is a milestone in America's racial and cultural evolution. It is 45 years since Martin Luther King, in the greatest of all late-20th century American speeches looked forward to the day when his children would not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. Almost unbelievably, that dream has now become a reality in the shape of America's first African-American leader and its first black first family. It is a day many thought they would never see. It is hard to know whether to weep or shout for joy now that it has arrived - probably both - but it is a lesson to the world.

Mr Obama will take office in January amid massive unrealisable expectations and facing a daunting list of problems - the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the broken healthcare system, the spiralling federal budget and America's profligate energy regime all prominent among them. Eclipsing them all, as Mr Obama has made clear in recent days, is the challenge of rebuilding the economy and the banking system. These, though, are issues for another day. Today is for celebration, for happiness and for reflected human glory. Savour those words: President Barack Obama, America's hope and, in no small way, ours too.

Frankly, I had postponed any possible thought of being proud of the old US of A for at least several years. Criminies, this was just a vote! But at this point I'm delighted in positive feedback in any shape or form.

And Digby weighs in as follows:

There are many things to be said about Obama's victory and people much more erudite and talented than I will be writing about all of it over the next few days. For me, there are twp things that are important and deserve at least a passing mention this morning after.

The first, of course, is what I referenced below. The election of the first African American president is inspiring for all the obvious reasons. I was never one who believed that we wouldn't ever elect a black president. But I assumed that he would have to be a conservative Republican in order to win --- a sort of Nixon/China deal. It is a sign of something very, very promising that this country elected a black Democrat.

The other thing is this:

"Your election raises great hopes in France, Europe and the rest of the world," French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a letter to the president-elect. "I have just sent my warmest congratulations to Sen. Obama," said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown from his office at 10 Downing Street, before pointing to his country's "special relationship" with America. "I have talked to Sen. Obama on many occasions and I know that he is a true friend of Britain."

Newspapers around the world seemed upbeat, and the most positive press in Britain appeared to come from the two papers owned by News Corp. (nyse: NWS - news - people ) owner Rupert Murdoch. "One Giant Leap For Mankind," proclaimed The Sun, a right-wing tabloid that is widely read in Britain, while The Times of London had a picture of Obama with the headline "The New World."

"Historic" seemed to be the buzzword of the day, used in the headlines for the South China Morning Post, the Times of India and El Mundo of Spain. Many papers like Le Monde of France and Spain's El Pais also referred to a fulfillment of the "American Dream."

An article in Indian newspaper The Hindu suggested that Obama's election could help resolve the separatist issue in Kashmir, while Pierre Avril, a blogger for France's Figaro newspaper, said that Brussels would now want to "forget the Bush years."

Abdul Rahman, a reporter for the Iraqi satellite TV channel Al Sharqiya, told Forbes.com that there were two different reactions to Obama's win in Iraq. "Those who are against the political process are optimistic," while others are more concerned about future political changes. "The rumor is that Obama will change the whole political process."

Obama had said in his speech that "to those who would tear this world down--we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security--we support you."

One of the most frustrating missed opportunities of the last eight years was rejecting the outpouring of support from around the world after 9/11 and failing to create a new regime of cooperation and common purpose in the age of globalization.

It looks like America might just be given another chance. Let's hope we get it right this time.

Just Around the Bend

It was something like inevitable that I would expend a day of vacation today. My mind could in no way have been cajoled into paying attention to work stuff (esp. after more or less full day yesterday of working through pretty loathsome "monthly progress reports" on my too-long list of projects). (Picture is supposed to be evocative of hope and opportunity just around that bend - sort of an earthbound - or reality-based - "Over the Rainbow" moment.)

The question was whether I would give in to my personal (introvert) preference of staying at home and monitoring things or yield to conscience that knew something more participatory was called for. Conscience won. I signed up for a couple hours of phone-calling for the AM, only to be instead asked to do GOTV/canvass door-to-door - and in Snohomish County to the north of us. Maybe more on that later. I wanted to get off a quick post here to share great election-day story and another post with suggestions as to how to watch the returns tonight.

You might wonder why I would link you up with a post/comment entitled "I Didn't Vote for Obama Today." Believe me, it's an inspirational tale as well as a good reminder not to read too much into a terse title:

I have a confession to make.

I did not vote for Barack Obama today.

I've openly supported Obama since March. But I didn't vote for him today.

I wanted to vote for Ronald Woods. He was my algebra teacher at Clark Junior High in East St. Louis, IL. He died 15 years ago when his truck skidded head-first into a utility pole. He spent many a day teaching us many things besides the Pythagorean Theorem. He taught us about Medgar Evers, Ralph Abernathy, John Lewis and many other civil rights figures who get lost in the shadow cast by Martin Luther King, Jr.

But I didn't vote for Mr. Woods.

I wanted to vote for Willie Mae Cross. She owned and operated Crossroads Preparatory Academy for almost 30 years, educating and empowering thousands of kids before her death in 2003. I was her first student. She gave me my first job, teaching chess and math concepts to kids in grades K-4 in her summer program. She was always there for advice, cheer and consolation. Ms. Cross, in her own way, taught me more about walking in faith than anyone else I ever knew.

But I didn't vote for Ms. Cross.

I wanted to vote for Arthur Mells Jackson, Sr. and Jr. Jackson Senior was a Latin professor. He has a gifted school named for him in my hometown. Jackson Junior was the pre-eminent physician in my hometown for over 30 years. He has a heliport named for him at a hospital in my hometown. They were my great-grandfather and great-uncle, respectively.

But I didn't vote for Prof. Jackson or Dr. Jackson.

I wanted to vote for A.B. Palmer. She was a leading civil rights figure in Shreveport, Louisiana, where my mother grew up and where I still have dozens of family members. She was a strong-willed woman who earned the grudging respect of the town's leaders because she never, ever backed down from anyone and always gave better than she got. She lived to the ripe old age of 99, and has a community center named for her in Shreveport.

But I didn't vote for Mrs. Palmer.

I wanted to vote for these people, who did not live to see a day where a Black man would appear on their ballots on a crisp November morning.

In the end, though, I realized that I could not vote for them any more than I could vote for Obama himself.

So who did I vote for?

No one.

I didn't vote. Not for President, anyway.

-clip-

And if a little guidance might help you manage your inner demons tonight (i.e., guidance a little more to the point than my prior "turn off the tv," which I will be unable to enforce around here), you might give this a look:

Here's a guide to how to watch tonight's election returns.

Washington - Just a few hours now, and we'll know who will be the country's 44th president. To help you know the real score as it happens, here's a quick guide of what to watch for Tuesday night starting at 7 p.m. EST.

Keeping Score: The best way to keep score is to start with the 2004 result, when the Republicans won 286 electoral college votes and the Democrats won 252.

Then, any time McCain wins a state his party did not win in 2004, add the state's total electoral college votes to the 286 and subtract it from the Democrats' 252.

For example, if McCain wins Pennsylvania and its 21 votes, add that to his column for a running total of 307 and subtract it from the Obama column, for a running total of 231.

At the same time, any time Obama wins a state his party did not win last time, add that to the 252 and subtract it from the Republicans.

So, if Obama wins Virginia and its 13 votes, add it to Obama's starting base of 252 for a running total of 265, and reduce McCain's running total to 273.

States to Watch: Most states are solidly in one column or the other and can be ignored. New York will vote Democratic, for example. So watch the states that are close and might switch from the 2004 result.

The watch list, from East to West as polls are scheduled to close:

7 p.m. EST: Georgia, Indiana, and Virginia.
7:30 p.m. EST: Ohio, North Carolina.
8 p.m. EST: Florida, New Hampshire, Missouri, and Pennsylvania.
9 p.m. EST: Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, and New Mexico.
10 p.m. EST: Iowa, Nevada.
11 p.m. EST: North Dakota.

Lines to Watch: Many states could keep polls open late if people are still in line.

Tripwires: If Indiana is too close to call, it suggests problems for McCain. It's the most Republican of the early states Tuesday night, and he should win it comfortably if he's doing OK.

Exit Polls: Ignore them. If you stumble across one on the radio or the web, run away.

-clip-

If Only It Were Now Only 24 Hours to Go!

I saw a headline last night along the lines of "48 Hours to Go." I couldn't help but think of Johnnie's "25 Minutes to Go." Hopefully the next 24 will not be quite that grim!

But there's no doubt the next 24 will be stressful. The more you can avoid the idiot-box, the better. No point in even tuning in before dinner time. Get your updates from reliable sources on the Internet.

John Dean, acknowledged former Goldwater-repub, continues to provide helpful reminders about this authoritarian "thing" that seems to fill a psychological need for a significant fraction of the population, otherwise known as the certifiable (explaining why shrub's negatives cannot get much below 20%?):

Occasionally, during the past eight years of writing this column, I have addressed the remarkably dangerous manner in which Republican Party officials rule the nation when they control one or more of the three branches of the federal government. Over the same period, I've also made this argument, even more directly and loudly, in three books on the subject.

In this column, I will be more pointed on this subject than I have ever been, while also repeating a few key facts that I have raised earlier -- because Election Day 2008 now provides the only clear remedy for the ills of Republican rule.

The Republican Approach to Government: Authoritarian Rule

Republicans rule, rather than govern, when they are in power by imposing their authoritarian conservative philosophy on everyone, as their answer for everything. This works for them because their interest is in power, and in what it can do for those who think as they do. Ruling, of course, must be distinguished from governing, which is a more nuanced process that entails give-and-take and the kind of compromises that are often necessary to find a consensus and solutions that will best serve the interests of all Americans.

Republicans' authoritarian rule can also be characterized by its striking incivility and intolerance toward those who do not view the world as Republicans do. Their insufferable attitude is not dangerous in itself, but it is employed to accomplish what they want, which it to take care of themselves and those who work to keep them in power.

Authoritarian conservatives are primarily anti-government, except where they believe the government can be useful to impose moral or social order (for example, with respect to matters like abortion, prayer in schools, or prohibiting sexually-explicit information from public view). Similarly, Republicans' limited-government attitude does not apply regarding national security, where they feel there can never be too much government activity - nor are the rights and liberties of individuals respected when national security is involved. Authoritarian Republicans do oppose the government interfering with markets and the economy, however -- and generally oppose the government's doing anything to help anyone they feel should be able to help themselves.

-clip-

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, the Republican candidates, have shown themselves to be unapologetic and archetypical authoritarian conservatives. Indeed, their campaign has warmed the hearts of fellow authoritarians, who applaud them for their negativity, nastiness, and dishonest ploys and only criticize them for not offering more of the same.

The McCain/Palin campaign has assumed a typical authoritarian posture: The candidates provide no true, specific proposals to address America's needs. Rather, they simply ask voters to "trust us" and suggest that their opponents - Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden - are not "real Americans" like McCain, Palin, and the voters they are seeking to court. Accordingly, McCain and Plain have called Obama "a socialist," "a redistributionist," "a Marxist," and "a communist" - without a shred of evidence to support their name-calling, for these terms are pejorative, rather than in any manner descriptive. This is the way authoritarian leaders operate.

-clip-

Just when it seemed Mcslimey could not get worse, he does

It's so important I'm reprinting Jo-Ann Mort's post on McCain vile campaign against Rashid Khalidi in full

It has come to this--the red baiting and the nastiness of the McCain/Palin campaign, in desperation to get Jewish support, is now baiting and bad-mouthing a notable Palestinian-American historian, Rashid Khalidi, for his and his wife's friendship with Obama. The Khalidis know Obama from their time in Hyde Park, when Rashid was a professor at the University of Chicago.

Now at Columbia University, he is someone who has always reached out to all sides in the debate about the future of Israel and Palestine. He has been outspoken in his arguments against Arafat's ways of governing and terrorism and when he was at U of C, he was close to Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, one of the most important American Jewish figures of our time. For the Republicans to go after him is pure vile--they think that the Jewish vote is so stupid and racist that they will turn away from the Democrats solely on this type of slander. For someone like Daniel Pipes, quoted in today's New York Times story, to call him 'marginal,' is a joke. It's time to move the Center back to the Center--let's hope that happens as of November 5--for the sake of America, the sake of Israel and the sake of Palestine.

McCain's final gambit is racism pure and simple, a stain on our national honor.

Greenwald appropriately rides this pony further:

Numerous commentators have condemned the McCain campaign's despicable -- and patently false -- attack on Professor Rashid Khalidi as an "anti-Semite," deployed in order, yet again, to insinuate that Barack Obama is an American-hating, Muslim/Arab radical. Even Fred Hiatt's Washington Post Editorial Page this morning called McCain's comments about Khalidi "a vile smear," "simply ludicrous," and "itself condemnable," and favorably cited Khalidi's response when asked by The Post if he wanted to address the controversy: "I will stick to my policy of letting this idiot wind blow over."

It's true, as those commentators point out, that this episode is just the latest in the McCain campaign's increasingly desperate (and laughably inept) attempt to win by sinking lower and lower into McCarthyite muck. But it goes far beyond just the McCain campaign. The neoconservative Right has been doing exactly this for a long time -- playing frivolous games with the "anti-semitism" accusation, casually tossing it at anyone who utters any criticism of Israel or who advocates some even-handed approach to Israel's conflicts with its various enemies. As Joe Klein said yesterday:

Here we have the McCain campaign's execrable Michael Goldfarb slinging around accusations of anti-semitism--a favorite pastime, as we've seen this year, among Jewish neoconservatives. . . . I'd say that if we have a bigot here, it's Mr. Goldfarb who, if he's intent on calling people antisemitic--or any other epithet--should be required to provide chapter and verse, which he does not do on CNN. (I'd also like to know on what basis CNN's Rick Sanchez can stipulate that Khalidi is antisemitic.)

To put it mildly, there are many profound flaws with Joe Klein as a pundit and, unlike others, I'm not impressed by his vocal support for Obama this year. There are many former Beltway Bush enablers with their wet fingers in the air who have undergone similar transformations, who will, I fully expect, return to form once circumstances change. Needless to say, I take a backseat to nobody in criticizing Klein, but on this topic, I am impressed with what Klein has done and he deserves a lot of credit.

Although he began doing so a bit later than one might argue he should have, Klein really became the first person in a venue as establishment-serving as Time Magazine to explicitly criticize neocons for their Israel-centric fixations and, much more importantly, for their disgusting exploitation of "anti-semitism" accusations against anyone and everyone who disagrees with their views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict and, more generally, on the Middle East.

Having someone like Klein, in a place like Time, make those arguments without punishment is highly threatening to the neocons' ability to continue to intimidate people away from expressing divergent views by wielding "anti-semitism" accusations. And they know that it is threatening, which is why, once Klein began doing it, they engaged in a full-court swarm to attack and demonize Klein and even insinuate that he should and would be fired for his transgressions on the topic of neocons and Israel. The ADL formally condemned Klein, and National Review's Peter Wehner predicted/hoped/threatened:

For those who have been watching Joe Klein v. well, lots of people, here's the latest. It’s like watching a movie that you now know is going to end very badly, and very sadly.

Had it been 2003, Wehner probably would have been right. But it didn't end "badly" or "sadly" for Klein. Quite the contrary, he continued criticizing neocons at least as aggressively and unapologetically -- actually, even more so -- and not only was he undeterred by the standard neocon "anti-semitism" rants, he became increasingly defiant in his refusal to suppress his critiques.

-clip-