Wash Day

It's Monday, the traditional laundry day, so a number of news items need to be hung out to dry.

In the department of hopeful trends, there are these: the average age of conservative talk radio listeners is 67 and rising. Other stats show overwhelming evidence of liberal leanings and especially support for President Obama among the young. Add to this, the decline in the number of Americans who identify themselves as Christian. Apart from whatever this says, positive or negative, about religious inquiry, it signals that the apparent decline in influence of the Christian fundamentalist Rabid Right is upheld by this broader trend.

I think we're going to be looking at President Obama's ongoing trip in Europe for a long time, because it says and portends so much. It began at the G20 conference with this premise, according to one oped contributor to the NY Times: "This conference was about saving the world, but more important for the participants, it was about saving their political lives. Mr. Obama is the only popular politician left in the world. He would win an election in any one of the G-20 countries, and his fellow world leaders will do anything to take home a touch of that reflected popularity."

Back at home, a new New York Times poll finds Americans are more optimistic about the economy since Obama's Inauguration. Other polls also show that Americans still expect this downturn to last awhile.

In less upbeat news, there were revelations that the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 was much worse than previously known, at least by the public, and that the much, much higher levels of radiation released has caused a number of deaths and health problems.

There's no point to linking to stories about the earthquake in Italy, since they are only beginning to count the casualities and assess the damage. The epicenter was not very far from the village where my maternal grandparents lived--where my mother was born--and where I still have relatives. The history of earthquakes in this region goes back almost two thousand years, probably more, but like where we live, there is lots of lived time between the worst of them. Even though I've never been to Manoppello and have never met or been in touch with my relatives there, I'll be watching the news anxiously, hoping for the best.

Hoops

The Obamas are in Europe--wonder what that's about--so he's missing the Final Four over the weekend. What could be more important than that?

A lot of people (including Barack) were surprised to see Villanova and Michigan State in it, with North Carolina and UConn. I hate to say it, but Villanova didn't surprise me. I was rooting for Pitt, and that was an awful way to lose (watching a drive all the way to the basket with 5 seconds left after they'd just tied the game.) But Pitt's habit of playing just well enough to win was going to come back to haunt them sooner or later. They did get into the Elite Eight for the first time in school history, so congratulations for that. (And congrats to Penn State for winning the NIT!)

Still, I don't see Nova getting past North Carolina. Now that Michigan State is in it, you have to give them the edge against UConn, if only based on emotion: theirs and Michigan's, since their game will be played there. That's a state that could use some good news.

North Carolina is still the team to beat. Right, Barack? Oh, right, you're busy.

The Week's Econ Adventures

There's plenty enough to worry about, with the possible depth of this economic crisis, and the dubious credentials of some of those charged with ending it. But there are also plenty of doubts to dismiss, like whether the federal government ought to be acting.

Doesn't anybody here read the Constitution? Does "regulate commerce" ring a bell? (Hint: Article 1, Section 8.)

I'm hardly an expert on the financial system but this stuff the Obama administration proposed last week seems reasonable. Between the ideal and the possible may fall the shadow, but I don't think even the shadow knows what actually will work. I'll go with Barack, and apparently I'm not alone in that sentiment.

The auto company stuff is a little more within my comfort zone to talk about. There's been a lot of angst since President Obama announced that GM and Chrysler have a couple of months more to get it together, which also meant the head of GM had to go, and Chrysler is likely to have a new owner soon. (For those with short memories, heads have rolled before.) While some cooler heads approved the overall approach, there was a lot of emotion over Detroit and the car industry.

But what I noted was everything that President Obama did before he spoke on GM. He extended unemployment benefits, got seed money in the stim to retool industry for clean energy tech, supported unions, etc.

If GM shrinks and the U.S. auto industry contracts, it will have hard consequences. In a sense, I've seen it before, when Big Steel collapsed in Pittsburgh in the 70s and 80s. The city is half the population it was at its industrial height, and one reason that the Steelers have so many fans all over the country is the diaspora that followed the steel industry collapse. A lot of western PA relocated.

A lot of lives were changed, and some of those changes were truly tragic. Unions were really weakened then, and that was a big factor in stalling and shrinking the middle class all over the country.

But Obama is first of all trying to save GM, so the US has an auto industry, and above all, a manufacturing capacity. He is intent on creating new manufacturing possibilities making clean energy technology, including cars. Those auto plants and steel plants saved this country in World War II when they retooled for war. Now when they retool for clean technologies for the future, they can help save the world.

I believe Obama is also intent on making sure those jobs are union jobs.
This isn't a lot of comfort to people who may lose their jobs now, especially those who are not so young. Young people perhaps have figured out that jobs or businesses aren't as long-term as they used to be, in any field.

And there have been problems for Detroit for a long time. The demise of the steel industry was also a long time coming, or so some analysts said. One book on the subject was titled And Then the Wolf Finally Came.

Pittsburgh is a different city now, but it changed, and it is weathering this economy better than a lot of other cities. There is perhaps even a brighter future for manufacturing in America, even for a better car industry. Anybody got a better idea?

Update: Michael Moore sees the firing of the GM CEO a victory for the workers the company screwed over the years.

One Adult, Lots of "Press"

In his second press conference last evening, President Obama seemed to be the adult in a room of squabbling children, otherwise known as "the press." All those goofy questions, with "follow-ups" that Obama had already answered. Along those lines, there's this interesting diary on Professor Obama's classroom management skills.

I watched the press conference with my friend Mike from PA, who was visiting. This apparently is his favorite of my blogs, so this one's for Mike. We had a great time.

Twitter me this, Batman... Click to enlarge to readable dimensions. And visit This Modern World.

Rushed

Chatter continues on Rush Limbaugh, which I routinely switch away from. But I am catching one question, raised most loudly by Chris Matthews, as to why the Obama White House is elevating Rush and using him for political purposes--because he is vastly unpopular with most of the country, he doesn't strengthen or certainly expand GOPer power. But why is the Obama White House engaging in this, when Obama made such a point of post-partisan bi-partisan consensus?

Well, of course I wouldn't know but I can guess. President Obama went to great lengths to get cooperation on the Recovery Act. He and Democrats didn't debate it on TV when they were talking with Republican lawmakers. But the GOPers did go public. While they were pretending to confer, they were already aligned against Obama and the bill. They drank at the White House and had coffee at the Capitol, but they'd already decided to enforce a united GOPer front. They were playing the President for a patsy.

So for awhile all the cable chatter was about why Obama was in the swamp of bipartisanship when he should just face facts and go forward with a Democratic bill, and stop trying to compromise.

Well, trying to play the President for a patsy has consequences. And this rush to Rush may be it. By tagging GOPers with Rush's leadership, the White House is forcing the GOPers in Congress to defend themselves. It's actually pretty funny that the host of Hardball doesn't see it when it's in front of him. Now he complains that this is beneath Obama. But now that the budget and health care are on the fast track agenda, GOPers are in some disarray, and they must realize that Obama isn't going to always be on defense, or a patsy.

As for the cable and blog chatterers, they could actually choose to ignore the Rush stuff but they've played their part with such predictable perfection that they are the patsys. And when their grandchildren find out they were hosts or bloggers for HuffPost and ask them about reporting on the great transformations and policy debates of the Obama administration, what are they going to say? Actually we didn't cover that. We talked about Rush.

Getting Used to This

I suppose we're all still getting used to this: we've got a President who is doing weird things, like keeping campaign promises. Like changing things.

Some seem to still be having problems coping with the fact that we have a Democrat in the White House. Somebody on Keith pointed out--I think it was that guy in the v-neck sweater from the Nation--that despite the change in party of power, Washington and its media is still geared up to serve Republicans. But it seems so is Keith. Most of "Countdown" is still railing against Republicans and the right. Hey, Keith--how about more on what Obama is doing, instead of what the Republicans are saying? It's the same moronic blather, and it doesn't do anything anymore.

Meanwhile, Obama is doing so much so fast, with such huge changes comparatively, that it would be nice to see more about that. Is anybody equipped to do that kind of reporting, after eight years in the Bush? A newspaper in England not exactly in tune with a Democratic agenda has noticed a few things.

Tomorrow Kathleen Sebelius is supposed to be announced as the choice for Health and Human Services. Politically it may not seem like the smartest move. If she stayed in Kansas and ran for the Senate in 2010, it probably would mean a crucial Democratic seat. Meanwhile, Howard Dean doesn't have a job. But Governor Sebelius is praised as an administrator--and that's what HHS needs. So it may well be better for the country.

He is the President We Have Been Waiting For

A few scattered thoughts on Obama's speech. At first for me it was another in the special moments, the firsts--the first time the Sergeant at Arms of the House announces, "Madame Speaker, the President of the United States"--and I don't have to cringe, I can feel the thrill: it's a President I like, it's my President. And it's not even Martin Sheen. It's the real one.

After the speech, the feeling that is also becoming familiar, that I am luckier than I thought I'd be to live to see this. I never felt quite this way with Carter or Clinton. Not since JFK have I felt so strongly that this is my President. I'd follow this guy anywhere.

So I could go through the speech--if I wasn't too tired--and point out places where the words are perfect. Repositioning the financial recovery plans was brilliant--talking sternly about Wall Street and bank mistakes and abuses, but saying we can't govern from anger, and then repositioning "bailout" money as only to start banks lending. This was pure FDR, as several commentators noted.

Obama has several times made the case that future-oriented reinvestment pays off twice--in short-term stimulus, and in long-range economic growth--and a third time in helping to at least try to save the planet. In this speech he also tied it to bringing down the deficit--because that requires a strong economy, bringing tax dollars in--and to America returning to economic leadership.

He made the same case for health care and education. He tied it all to Americans rallying in a time of need, and America getting back on the right track and becoming a leader again. Even the way he talked about the auto industry as an American invention played into that theme. In other words, he tied it all to America, and in retrospect you can see how he always does this, but never as effectively as this.

He's done this before, though not quite as well as Tuesday night: he spoke to the people and for the people. As a speech, it was his finest since the campaign. It was better than his Inaugural speech. It will resonate for a long time, and I'm fervently grateful we've got a leader when we need one.

As for individual elements, I was suprised but pleased to hear carbon caps proposed, and I was especially pleased to hear his support for national service--the part of his campaign that hadn't gotten on stage yet. Plus a nice mention--I guess we call it a shout-out now--to Teddy Kennedy.

I heard one of the pundits say to expect a lot of ribbon cutting in the near future, as the recovery projects get started. I hope so. Americans have to see tangible results, and then maybe some confidence starts to return. Polls before the speech showed that Americans still believe in Obama, and that means some optimism, a little less fear, and more patience. That's only going to increase because of this speech.

As for the Bobby Jindal response, I happened to be watching MSNBC at that moment, and as I watched him walk out, I heard the words "Oh my God," and it took a moment for me to realize that I didn't speak them, they came from the TV. I'm sure it was Keith's voice. It is further demonstration of how low the GOPers have fallen. Joe Klein's analysis before the speech suggests the wounds they continue to inflict on themselves, and as good as Obama's speech was, Jindal's was bad. Or worse.

Update: Can you name that tune in two words? Apparently I couldn't. Chris Matthews has taken responsibility for the "Oh God" comment. Is my voice recognition failing? Which is so good on identifying obscure voiceovers? I'll just put this one down to overconfidence.

California Nightmare Passed

This is the budget the CA legislature finally passed that Governorahnold called "perfect" as described in the lede of the New York Times: After five days of intense, nearly nonstop negotiations over how to close a $41 billion gap, California state senators agreed early Thursday morning on a budget that raises taxes, cuts deeply into services and borrows far into the future, leaving nearly every person in the state scathed in some way.'

The Times quotes the governator: “Some special interests may not like this budget — but like I always say, what’s good for the people is not always good for special interests." So Ahnold still does comedy. The budget process for the last several months was nothing but bribing enough Republicans to pass it with special interest provisions, including the open primary that the last R wanted, and hefty corporate tax breaks for multinationals, in a budget that raises taxes for ordinary people and reduces services. To be fair, some Dems had to be bribed too. Politics is rarely uglier than at the level of state legislatures.

But yes, California lives to stew in its contradictions another day.

The Latest CA Hold-Up

Last night's deal fell apart early Wednesday, and by Wednesday night, there's another deal between one R legislator and the governator, though the Dems haven't signed on yet. The deal is for constitutional amendments added to the budget bill--that's not a typo and it's not clever enough to be satire--including one for open primaries.

Meanwhile, L.A. is considering water rationing this summer for the first time in twenty years, and a major cache of fossils was found in L.A. That's separate from the talking fossils destroying the state in Sacramento.

California Follies Update

Word just before midnight is that the one more R vote needed to pass the extremely compromised California budget has been obtained, at the possible cost of a coup in the R Senate leadership, with an uberwingnut replacing the "normal" wingnut as Senate minority leader.

But no vote expected tonight, so deal or no deal tomorrow.

Gandhian Hardball

Today's topic for meaningless chatter is bipartisanship. GOPers say the stim wasn't, the Obama folks insist the stim was: David Axelrod: "the package reflects the thinking of members of both parties. And I think that over time . . . there'll be a positive effect of just having dialogue, of just talking, which has not happened for a long time in this town."

On the other hand, President Obama told Clarence Page he thought the Republicans decided to make the stim a party line vote even before he first met with them. Andrew Sullivan sees it in stark terms--writing about Republicans: Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one. There are legitimate debates to be had; and then there is the cynicism and surrealism of total political war. We now should have even less doubt about what kind of people they are. And the mountain of partisan vitriol Obama will have to climb every day of the next four or eight years."

The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg has a creative take: "Fifty years ago, the civil-rights movement understood that nonviolence can be an effective weapon even if—or especially if—the other side refuses to follow suit. Obama has a similarly tough-minded understanding of the political uses of bipartisanship, which, even if it fails as a tactic for compromise, can succeed as a tonal strategy: once the other side makes itself appear intransigently, destructively partisan, the game is half won. Obama is learning to throw the ball harder. But it’s not Rovian hardball he’s playing. More like Gandhian hardball."

But given that all the steps Obama is taking and will take are going to take time to work, probably beyond the next election cycle in 2010, reinforcing political party support is going to be a topic (which should thrill the kids bidding each other up on the rec list at Daily Kos, with their adrenelin needs for contentious election campaigns.) The gossip on filling cabinet vacancies includes Kathleen Sebelius for HHS and Harold Ford, Jr. for Commerce. But these appointments would take two strong candidates out of contention for picking up Senate seats--much more of the moment for Sebelius, who is the only Kansas Democrat polling well enough to win in 2010. Not only the quest for the 60th Democrat is at stake, but the symbolism of Kansas is worth a lot in future inroads into GOPer territory.

But there are a lot of other uncertainties as well as other opportunities. Chances seem pretty good for a pickup in New Hampshire, but now the Dem seats in Illinois and perhaps even New York and Colorado are less than certain, with possibly contentious primaries ahead. On the other hand, if Charlie Crist runs for the Senate in Florida, given his support of Obama and the stim, there may be another R vote to join the lonely three. (Assuming Spector survives both a primary and a general in PA, which is not at all a sure thing. I'm not altogether sure he's even going to run.)

As ridiculous and repulsive as politics gets on the national level, it can't hold a candle to state politics. Right now California is working hard to commit suicide. Our legislature is full of fools and knaves, and the governator is so ineffective that people may begin to pine for Gray Davis. A budget deal, which gets worse by the minute, is only exceeded in awful consequences by no budget deal--and even if there is one, it may well be nullified by angry voters as early as May. In an apt if a little inside baseball analysis, there's this truth: The bill is coming due for 30 years of anti-tax zealotry and the belief that we can provide whatever citizens need without paying for it.The corporate tax breaks are really insulting, but the state's credit is zilch and it's estimated that delay will cost some $300 million simply in stopping and then restarting ongoing infrastructure projects. All in all, things are getting too big for such small politics.

The New Politics

There's a new reality out here taking shape. The economic crisis is changing the country, and it's changing the world--so much so that a new national security advisor says the unrest it causes is more of a threat than terrorism. And that's before it becomes obvious to everyone that the Climate Crisis will change everything.

We are maybe even less willing to see that there is a new politics in Washington, in the country and perhaps beginning elsewhere in the world. The Era of Obama has begun.

What the Washington Post wrote about the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act is worth repeating: "Twenty-four days into his presidency, Barack Obama recorded last night a legislative achievement of the sort that few of his predecessors achieved at any point in their tenure."In size and scope, there is almost nothing in history to rival the economic stimulus legislation that Obama shepherded through Congress in just over three weeks... The feat compares only with President Franklin D. Roosevelt's banking system overhaul in 1933, which cleared Congress within days of his inauguration."

After all the drama, Obama got about the amount he wanted, and his core programs and priorities were funded. He not only is pouring money into the economy, he's jump-starting the future.

Yet as Ron Brownstein notes the progressive left is moaning about Obama's mistakes on the biggest week of the modern presidency, at least since FDR. Democrats are going crazy because bipartisanship didn't work and made Obama look dumb. But Obama never wavered from his principles, stuck with his party, said that he's still committed to changing how Washington operates, but injecting civility and a sense of the common good is a long term process. And as he said Saturday, "I am an eternal optimist [but] that doesn't mean I'm a sap."

And though he got few Republican votes--they were a precious few. And he also got the considerable help of Joe Lieberman, and Joe Klein thinks "his active lobbying for the bill has to be considered directly attributable to the grace with which Obama treated him."

But even more deluded than nervous Dems are Republicans who think they've scored big. The best House members and some safe seat Senators have done is coopted primary challenges from the right. The media bought their bilge--out of habit maybe, or because they thrive on contrived conflict. Just how thoroughly they bought it, and how thoroughly wrong they were, is the gleeful subject of Frank Rich's column today: "Just as in the presidential campaign, Obama has once again outwitted the punditocracy and the opposition. The same crowd that said he was a wimpy hope-monger who could never beat Hillary or get white votes was played for fools again."

Rich notes "As the liberal blog ThinkProgress reported, G.O.P. members of Congress wildly outnumbered Democrats as guests on all cable news networks, not just Fox News, in the three days of intense debate about the House stimulus bill." He quotes David Axelrod. The stimulus battle was more of the same. “This town talks to itself and whips itself into a frenzy with its own theories that are completely at odds with what the rest of America is thinking,” he [Axelrod] says. Once the frenzy got going, it didn’t matter that most polls showed support for Obama and his economic package: “If you watched cable TV, you’d see our support was plummeting, we were in trouble. It was almost like living in a parallel universe.”

Obama is enormously popular outside of Washington, and he's making sure Washington knows it by getting huge crowds in places where he lost in the election. And he's not going to sign "the stim" in some Washington ceremony but in Denver, Colorado. But we're not talking about the power of personality alone--Obama is popular because he's in touch. Much of Washington is not.

That's the new politics.

At the beginning of the Obama presidency--and it's still so great to write those words, the Obama presidency--there are moments about policy, about controversy and politics, and then there are moments--first moments especially--that remind me why I cared so much about electing Barack Obama. This first press conference was definitely one of those special moments. In any year, a display of lucidity, intelligence and respect for the press conference itself would have been a cause for joy. But in this year, we have the first President since FDR who can both put forth the approaches, programs and ideas we need to move up from disaster without visiting catastrophe on the way, and who can explain the situation, what he's doing and why. No wonder America trusts him.

This is just the opening statement. To get the full flavor, you need to see and hear the entire press conference.

Barack is Back, Part 1

Barack is Back, Part 2

Barack is Back

He's been President Obama for just over two weeks. He's set policies, reversed some of the most toxic policies of the Bush years, signed some long overdue legislation, and he's gone out of his way to work with Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress on the economic recovery bill.

Some bloviators and hyper-glandular politicos criticized, laughed at him and ground their teeth because he tried to be inclusive, and to end the old way of politics in Washington. But the onus isn't on him. He tried, just like he said he would, and he will keep on trying, because in the long run it's necessary.

But Thursday, with horseshit and chickenshit opposition to the recovery bill actually endangering it, we saw Barack. The Barack Obama who spoke to us in a long campaign, but also as the President. He gave two impassioned speeches, with succinct and strong prepared lines and arguments, but also with improvised arguments that were just as impassioned and strong.

To the Department of Energy he said:

In the last few days, we've seen proposals arise from some in Congress that you may not have read, but you'd be very familiar with, because you've been hearing them for the last 10 years, maybe longer. They're rooted in the idea that tax cuts alone can solve all our problems, that government doesn't have a role to play, that half- measures and tinkering are somehow enough, that we can afford to ignore our most fundamental economic challenges: the crushing cost of health care, the inadequate state of so many of our schools, our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

So let me be clear: Those ideas have been tested, and they have failed. They've taken us from surpluses to an annual deficit of over $1 trillion. And they've brought our economy to a halt. And that's precisely what the election we just had was all about. The American people have rendered their judgment, and now's the time to move forward, not back. Now's the time for action."

To House Democrats, in his prepared remarks he said:

If we do not move swiftly to sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, an economy that is in crisis will be faced with catastrophe. Millions more Americans will lose their jobs. Home will be lost. Families will go without health care. Our crippling dependence on foreign oil will continue. That is the price of inaction.

Now, I believe that legislation of such magnitude deserves the scrutiny that it's received, and you will get another chance to vote for this bill in the days to come. But I urge all of us to not make the perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary. The scale and scope of this plan is right.

So just as past generations of Americans have done in trying times, we can and must turn this moment of challenge into one of opportunity. The plan that you've passed has at its core a simple idea: let's put Americans to work doing the work that America needs done."

But the best of what he said isn't in the prepared text, so it's really worth checking out the video posted above.

The Speech: Pick Yourself Up

Among the many commentaries on President Obama's Inaugural Address, this Sunday Frank Rich added his well-considered opinion. He also heard the speech as stern and spare, but articulated the message of that tone: "But there’s a reason that this speech was austere, not pretty. Form followed content. Obama wasn’t just rebuking the outgoing administration. He was delicately but unmistakably calling out the rest of us who went along for the ride as America swerved into the dangerous place we find ourselves now."

The messes we're in aren't solely the fault of Bush and the Bushites, Rich continues, but the heedless greed of Wall Street and the rest of us. "The austerity of Obama’s Inaugural Address seemed a tonal corrective to the glitz and the glut. The speech was, as my friend Jack Viertel, a theater producer, put it, “stoic, stern, crafted in slabs of granite, a slimmed-down sinewy thing entirely evolved away from the kind of Pre-Raphaelite style of his earlier oration.”

Within the speech, Rich writes, are hints that Obama will demand a great deal of all of us if we're to set things right. No one truly listening to the Inaugural Address could doubt that this former community organizer intends to demand plenty from us as we face down what he calls “raging storms.” Rich concludes: While it’s become a Beltway cliché that America’s new young president has yet to be tested, it is past time for us to realize that our own test is also about to begin."

Rich also picked up on a reference in the speech that I missed, but should have caught. As a former drama critic who grew up enthralled with Broadway, Rich caught the song lyric reference in the phrase I heard as simply a bit cliched: "we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off.” I should have recognized it because it comes from one of the corners of the musical comedy world I know pretty well: Fred Astaire films. As Rich points out, it's from a lyric in Swingtime, (which must be in every fan's top five of Astaire musicals, if not top 2 or 3) by the insufficiently acknowledged Dorothy Fields.

It's an Astaire duet with Ginger Rogers in the movie, and she has the better lyrics. (She's trying to teach Astaire to dance, and he's pretending not to get it.) Some of the relevant refrains:

Nothing's impossible, I have found.
For when my chin is on the ground,
I pick myself up, dust myself off,
Start all over again.
Don't lose your confidence if you slip.
Be grateful for a pleasant trip,
And pick yourself up; dust yourself off;
Start all over again.

Work like a soul inspired
'Til the battle of the day is won.
You may be sick and tired,
But you'll be a man, my son.

Will you remember the famous men
Who had to fall to rise again.
So take a deep breath;
Pick yourself up;
Dust yourself off;
Start all over again."

The Speech: Second Look

I suspect that as people look at the speech more closely and see video of Obama delivering it again, it will grow in estimation. There are no big and surprising rhetorical flourishes, and I remain nearly solo in my conviction that JFK's speech was revolutionary in ways this was not (and in his call for global arms control and cooperation, JFK's is even more revolutionary now than it was then), but Obama himself is a revolution. What he stands for in his speech is a kind of restoration and reapplication of values, as he said:

" Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true."

Indeed, the pairings in this list are pretty mundane, almost cliches: hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, loyalty and patriotism--except for one: tolerance and curosity. That's an intriguing pairing, and it's very telling that "curosity" is in there at all. Obama spoke elsewhere in the speech about returning science to its rightful place, and he mentioned imagination in this key passage:

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage."

(Had I been asked, I think I would have argued that the final phrase should be:
"when imagination is joined to common purpose, and courage to necessity." If I'm getting the meaning, those are the parallel constructions, and the rhythm is as least as good.)

Responsibility is the watchword of the speech as a whole, and is used in many ways. The speech celebrates the "you'd do the same for me" responsibility of individuals, and calls for responsibility in government and business, and especially politics (where it's time to put away childish things.)

There are some echoes of JFK in foreign policy sections (assertions of power and right, but also humility, diplomacy and partnerships) and there's a specific echo of JFK's language as well as ideas in this key passage (the echo is "light the world"):

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake."

Obama does mention two key issues outside the usual international relations that absorb us in weary repetition of avoiding the worst and getting nowhere, again with a JFK friends/foes echo "With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet." JFK talked a lot about the nuclear threat, but the Climate Crisis was not yet on the radar. "Roll back the specter" is nice rhythmic language, though it otherwise doesn't bear close examination.

The economic section does resemble FDR's approach: he's reassuring about the fundamental capacity of the country, he outlines the basic problems plainly, and though Obama doesn't even try to match "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," he says basically that.

FDR named the villains:" the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men." Obama: "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." And later:

"Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good."

This is an eloquent formulation of what Obama has made clear elsewhere is his fundamental approach to both economics and social justice: to how America works. The line I emphasized is also his way of saying what JFK said a bit more eloquently ( "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.") but Obama says it in a better context, and as part of a convincing argument involving opportunity, rather than social conscience alone . That may be the hidden virtue of this speech: it isn't a collection of lines and assertions, but a set of arguments. Who knows, on further examination, it may turn out to be a single if complex argument.

First Thoughts

I record these for mostly my future curiosity, after time and the influence of others has reshaped them.

I thought Ric Warren's invocation was dreadful. Aretha! Too bad the Chief Justice screwed up the oath. However, Obama was already President by then--according to the Constitution, he became Prez at noon, regardless. The benediction by Joseph Lowery was powerful. The poem was wonderful as well. I loved the ceremony ending with Stars and Stripes forever. It made me think of my grandfather, who loved marches. And of course, Yo Yo Ma rules.

The Inaugural Address: It impressed me as stern and spare, without much rhetorical flourish, though Obama delivered it with great feeling and style. It seemed a strong statement of the historical moment. It was not visionary in the way that Kennedy's was--I listened to it again last night, and it remains daring and revolutionary in its call for the future. I'll have to go back and look at FDR's first inaugural, but at the moment I'm feeling that Obama's comes in third. (I'm not a real big fan of Lincoln's second inaugural--except of course for the last and most famous paragraph.) It will be interesting to see what phrase or sentence gets preserved as the essence of Obama's speech, because nothing jumped out right away. Then again, the "Ask not" sentence was not the most quoted of JFK's right away. It was probably "The torch has passed to a new generation..."

The TV coverage hasn't been bad, with especially some great field reporting--the African American reporters in particular are giving themselves to the historical moment.

On the crass or pop culture side, I noticed last night and today that Pepsi has gone all out to exploit the similarity of their traditional logo to the Obama campaign logo, with a series of high profile commercials. Interesting.

Inauguration Day

My first official act of the Obama Presidency: I added White House.gov to my Favorites menu.

You should too. Things are going to start happening fast.

Goodbye To All That

George Bush's last press conference ekes out the last full measure of outrage from Keith and Rachel and Campbell Brown. George Bush's last cabinet meeting is psychoanalyzed by Howard Fineman. Get set for George Bush's last address to the nation--and you know what? I DON'T CARE. I NEVER WANT TO HEAR THE MAN'S NAME AGAIN. Why are you spending psychic energy on what doesn't matter when there is so much that really does? Confirm an attorney general and let him deal with the Bushcorpse. If we keep thinking about the nightmare of the last eight years and how this country let it happen we will have no choice but to finally and forever GO INSANE.

The Obama Principle

Tim Kaine in accepting the DNC chair today, defined the organizational principles of the Obama campaign. Note them well: “An organization built around a pretty basic principle—the principle that everybody matters. You don’t have to be a big donor for your donation to matter. You don’t have to be a phd or a foreign policy expert for your idea to matter, and you don’t have to be a full time campaign worker for your effort to matter.”

Where it's always Groundhog Day

Update 1/10: The UN's most senior Human Rights official said Israeli forces may have committed war crimes in Gaza, and Naomi Klein is calling for a South Africa-style boycott of Israel.

A long time ago I concluded that the perpetual wild card of the future was the intractable conflict in the Middle East between Israel and everybody else, which could rapidly spark thermonuclear war. Over the past 40 years, "everybody else" has contracted somewhat--there are leaders and states in the region willing to establish peace, and have been acting that way. But the basic conflict with the Palestinians remains, and if possible, has grown worse.

The Israeli bombing and invasion of Gaza is the latest tragic case in point. A few years ago President Carter received widespread criticism for his critique of the state of things there, chronicled in a documentary I saw recently. Last night on Charlie Rose, I heard Bob Simon--eminent reporter for CBS, a Jew who has lived in Tel Aviv, and who spent 40 days in Iraqi prisons during the first Gulf War--say essentially the same thing: Israel has organized what is essentially an apartheid regime in Palestinian areas, and because Israel controls and has essentially closed borders in and especially out of Gaza (with the cooperation of Egypt), he calls Gaza the world's largest prison.

The only good news Simon had about the current invasion is that it will certainly be over by January 20, so as not to piss off the new President. President-elect Obama has expressed "deep concern over civilian deaths"--which overwhelmingly victimized Palestinian civilians, including many children--and (as others speculate) his silence likely indicates his own views are much different than those of the current President Bush, whereas when he made a public statement on the terrorist attacks in India, he was supporting the views of the soon-but not soon enough-to be former administration. Bush is capping his awful regime with his usual chicken hawkishness, more hawkish at times that even Israel, with no consequences to him or the people he represents.

Simon was very pessimistic about peace in the region, since Israel has flooded Palestinian areas with their own settlers, now probably impossible to remove as part of a two-state deal. But he notes that in 20 years or so, the Palestinian population will be larger than Israel, and some solution short of an official South Africa kind of apartheid regime will be needed. One doesn't like to suggest that killing Palestinian children now is meant to delay that day, but I wonder if a state has the right to "defend itself" by any means it sees fit, if it is perpetrating gross injustices and making no effort to end them. But then, I'm not a Middle East expert and have no desire to be one. Fatalism remains my basic attitude about the place.

Back to Work

Whatayaknow, politics is back...Bill Richardson de-appoints himself as Commerce Sec because of a grand jury investigation will go on past his confirmation hearings. Could also be because he realized he doesn't really want the job. One report says Team Obama didn't expect him to take it. But there's a lot of jibber jabber out there right now.

Like the leak of Leon Panetta for CIA Director, which a couple of reporters (including Ambinder) say didn't come from Team Obama, which planned to do it later, and the reason Sen. Feinstein wasn't consulted is that they just hadn't done it yet. Andrea Mitchell reported that Panetta was actually interested in Commerce. Well, there's formally nothing stopping Obama from switching. But despite the no-specific-spook-experience mantra, Panetta's name is getting good response for his uncompromising on the record anti-torture stance. Which is buttressed by other national security and legal nominees.

Others note Panetta's strengths as human resource manager, and that as White House Chief of Staff he learned what the President needs in terms of intelligence. If he can only stifle his need to say "obviously" at the beginning of every sentence, he should win confirmation.

Israel has to stop bombing children.

Meanwhile, as the elements of the Obama economic recovery package are discussed in Washington, news that auto sales continued to tank in December, with all carmakers (except Subaru) experiencing decline of more than a third--including Toyota. (Though they couldn't beat Chrysler, down by more than 50%.) Toyota is closing plants for awhile in Japan, and the worldwide slowdown includes China, where the government is expecting mass political protests.

Have A Hopeful Christmas

Christmas Eve news was mostly not good. Unemployment way up, manufacturing and sales down. But there are always good stories, too. And this Christmas, there is hope. Americans are feeling it, and hope's name is Obama.

CNN says: Eighty-two percent of those questioned in a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday morning approve of the way the Obama is handling his presidential transition. That's up 3 points from when we asked this question at the beginning of December...The 82 percent approval is higher than then President-elect George W. Bush 8 years ago, who had a 65 percent transition approval rating, and Bill Clinton, at 67 percent in 1992."

In fact it's higher than anybody since they started measuring. It means a lot of people have their hopes riding on Obama, but it also means that he's got a lot of room to maneuver, and a lot of support to do big things, and that's very hopeful.

He's making people giddy. Even his physique on vacation is getting rave reviews, and inspired one of those classic New York Post headlines: Buff Bam is Hawaii Hunk.

CNN continued: Barack Obama is having a better honeymoon with the American public than any incoming president in the past three decades. He's putting up better numbers, usually by double digits, than Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, or either George Bush on every item traditionally measured in transition polls," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

But is this the honeymoon? We haven't had the marriage ceremony yet. That's next month's Inauguration, and even with the Reverend Rick missstep, excitement for the Inaugural is building. Obama will take the oath with his hand on the Bible that Abraham Lincoln used in 1861, and no one's used since.

So this Christmas: Hope. Courage. Compassion. Love. And next month: Change we need.

Merry, happy everyone.

Class War Revisited

There's no doubt the execs of the Big Three U.S. automakers have screwed things up. They fought the future by spending money to suppress innovation, and to lobby and sue against mileage regulations they could easily have met with known technology.

But their workers didn't do that. And even if those U.S. companies did, the trouble they're currently in does not make them unique in the world. Canada, England, Italy and other nations have had to bail out their own carmakers, or are trying to figure out how right now.

And another big shoe dropped (or was thrown) on Monday when Toyota announced that for the first time in its history it is losing money. This is one of the companies with plants in the U.S. South paying their workers slightly less than union workers get in Detroit. And that sure isn't saving them. Nor is anybody complaining that they make lousy cars.

Once again, the news is rubbing our noses in the difference between the vilified car companies and the sainted banks, which got tens and hundreds of billions with no strings attached. Sunday we learned that more than one and a half of those billions went directly into the pockets of bank execs. And Monday we learned that the rest of it--well, we have no idea where the rest of it went, and the banks are refusing to say. (If you're having trouble expressing your outrage at this, you can always let Cramer do it for you.)

Paul Krugman's column forecasts "months, perhaps even a year, of economic hell" no matter what Obama does, and his previous column lays the responsibility at the feet of these same rich assholes and their tools who were temporarily in the government, helping them loot the treasury to boot, before they return to getting their considerable payoffs in the "private sector."

What Obama can do, as Krugman says, and what he must do is create the track for the transformation of the American economy, and give it a jump start. Part of that will be the programs and the partnerships, to re-industrialize and make conservation and social service revolutions into professions and employment. But part of it will be intellectual and moral leadership, because as Krugman shows, the spending money to fuel a basically insane consumer economy just won't be there. Nor will the world's environmental and economic health permit it.

The change is gonna come. And bringing to a close the super rich and ruling class warfare on everybody else will be part of it, beginning immediately.

Urgent: Change

The Obama government in waiting is upping the ante on economic recovery, aiming to create (or save) 3 million jobs instead of 2.5 million. NY Times: The new job target was set after a meeting last Tuesday in which Christina D. Romer, who is Mr. Obama’s choice to lead his Council of Economic Advisers, presented information about previous recessions to establish that the current downturn was likely to be “more severe than anything we’ve experienced in the past half-century,” according to an Obama official familiar with the meeting.

The Times reported the package being considered included a lot of immediate infrastructure projects, money for schools and education. Federal money to local governments would come with a “use it or lose it” clause under Mr. Obama’s plans, advisers say. The president-elect will also propose to direct some money to public and private partnerships for major projects like a national energy grid intended to harness alternative energy sources such as wind power.

VP Joe Biden defined one of his roles on Sunday: chairing a "middle class task force" to make sure federal efforts were making a positive difference for workers and their families.

That becomes all the more important on a day that the AP reported Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses, and other benefits last year, an Associated Press analysis reveals."

Meanwhile, the Washington Post found widespread public support for the Obama agenda:Majorities think Obama should help make major changes to the health-care system, enact new energy policies and institute a moratorium on home foreclosures. Majorities expect him to end U.S. involvement in Iraq, improve health care and turn around America's image abroad.

The Post noted optimism that Obama will help the economy recover, but a desire that he move beyond the economy to other agenda items quickly.

84 percent who want him to drive an effort to require electricity companies to increase the use of renewable sources of energy. A majority, 55 percent, want him to tackle the issue right after taking office in January.

A majority want Obama to make big changes to the country's health-care system, with 63 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of independents saying they want the changes right away.

Sunday Sorting

On how we got into this economic apocalypse: two articles in the New York Times, a report and a Krugman column, come to the same conclusion: de facto Ponzi schemes and other chimera that made a few people preposterously wealthy (and the most delusional among them felt and still feel entitled to it) at the expense of everyone else, and their future. Not exactly breaking news, but worth repeating when billions are still going to these same people, while help for everybody else is stingy, grudging or nonexistent.

On the Warren thing (for I hope the last time.) Obamafolks point out that "The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight."

And that "At his 2005 inaugural, George W. Bush tapped Rev. Dr. Louis Leon to deliver the invocation. Like Obama and Warren, the two shared a commitment to combating AIDS in Africa, as well as a friendship from time spent in each other's company. But Leon was and is a progressive voice. And his selection in '04 sparked a lot of interest, though little of the outrage that we see with Warren."

About the best defense of the Obama position (though admittedly I haven't read a lot of them) is Cynthia Tucker's, which includes this: Obama seems to be sincere about looking for ways to revive not only bipartisan cooperation but also ecumenical cooperation. He’s right to try. There are millions of people of good will who believe climate change demands a wide-ranging government response; that all Americans should have access to health care; that government ought to do more to help the poor. Those people can be found in mosques, synagogues and churches, listening to clerics whose views run the spiritual and ideological spectrum.

Tucker, that Atlanta newspaper columnist with the luscious lips on TV, writes as an avowed Christian, which leads to a number of other thoughts. A Christian POV might well make a difference on how you evaluate this, as the lack of one also may mean that the politics of it stands out. On the other hand, why is the Inauguration a Christian-only ceremony? As I am not a Christian by belief, I don't feel included, and I don't much care.

For Obama's Saturday message on science, and science appointments, see Dreaming Up Daily.

Worse To Bad

I've heard alarms like this before--in fact, I recall more persistent alarmism about the economy a few times in the 70s and 80s. But this is a different economy--it seems more interconnected and fragile. In any case, I am used to areas of life where the strain is obvious, while other parts of life and the economy seem to go on pretty well. This time, I'm observing the consequences almost everywhere. Pretty big ones too. When everything from housing to manufacturing to retail to newspapers and television--even public television--plus local and particularly state governments with huge cutbacks and just plain failures--it seems to be getting worse fast. Maybe that's why the alarms are curiously muted. Denial roasting on an open fire.

So this kind of apocalyptic Washington talk doesn't seem so much like hyperbole-as-usual. The dithering of the Bushites is helping to make things worse, and Obama's first task will be to move the economy from worse to bad. Though the Bushites finally managed a bridge loan to the auto companies, they also included more disproportionate punishment for labor, big surprise.

Paul Krugman outlined a sane approach to saving the economy in a New York Review essay. But that was written a month ago. Don't know what he thinks now, except that he says we're in very deep trouble, and to get out of it we'll need "creativity" and "luck." Still, his conclusion in the NYRB article emphasizes the creativity part: "We will not achieve the understanding we need, however, unless we are willing to think clearly about our problems and to follow those thoughts wherever they lead. Some people say that our economic problems are structural, with no quick cure available; but I believe that the only important structural obstacles to world prosperity are the obsolete doctrines that clutter the minds of men."

Here at home, we just started watching the DVDs of "The West Wing" beginning with the pilot episode: the Democratic administration is trying to make peace with the religious right. Still ripped from the headlines... I did get a little tremor from the past in identifying with the staff working for the Democratic President, and I suppose there's a little tremor of regret in not being either young enough or prominent enough to even try to be part of the new one. On the other hand, it's unlikely that at my age I'd feel politic enough not to say stuff like: Rick Warren is an idiot. Or perhaps even worse (given the power of the Oprah) that Dr. Phil is also an idiot.

As for the Rev. Warren deal, I think it's a mistake on several levels. After the shock of CA's Prop 8 and similar measures in other states, this is an unnecessary punch to the LGBT community, and the individuals within it. There could have been a less prominent, less symbolic, and more appropriate way to accomplish the always dodgy business of including the selectively intolerant and dogmatic.

But in a post at Time's "Swampland" suggesting that this is causing "buyer's remorse" among some Obama supporters. That's probably true of some, but personally I always assumed I would be disagreeing with Obama on one issue or another. I'm still happy with my purchase of a President, thank you.

In the meantime, we're about to have some primetime political theatre here in CA. While Ahnold and the legislature play high stakes poker with this huge state's huge finances (and ours personally, since we both derive major part of our incomes from a state university), there's about to be a showdown in the state supreme court over Prop 8. Attorney General Jerry Brown (yep, that one--former gov and prez candidate in the 70s) has just announced that he's not taking the side he's supposed to--defending the passage of the Prop 8 constitutional amendment as passed by voters--but arguing that it is itself unconstitutional, on equal protection grounds.

Jerry Brown will be facing off against the lead attorney arguing for Prop 8 and its amendment banning gay marriage--none other than Kenneth Starr (yep, that one--the Whitewater prosecutor and impeach Clinton guy.) Sounds like a live TV opportunity to me.

I Am Bored to Tears With...

Blago.
Shoes.
The Minnesota recount.
The Bush legacy project and all the air time it's getting. It isn't about history, guys. It's about what all those last minute rules are about. In four years, when people forget how much they hated Bush (right now, less than 20% of those polled say they will miss him, and most of those are comedians), the Republicans will trot out their revisionism (being spouted now on the "as long as they spell my name right" principle) and Obama's reversals of their proudest moments, to show he supports abortion and terrorism, and is against the family and keeping America safe, because he overturned Bush rules and outlawed torture.

The leftish assaults on Caroline Kennedy for U.S. Senator from New York. Much of this horseshit is coming from former Hillary supporters whose own sense of entitlement is a projection here. The rest is nonsense. Whoever gets the seat will have to run in two years, which means starting pretty much now. And then again two years after that. Anybody else appointed who wants to run will have to do nothing but fundraise for the next four years. Appoint Caroline--who says every Senate seat has to be filled by a pol. The place could use a little class. If she's no good, she won't win her election in two years.

Plus everything else that indicates how bored the media is right now. How afraid they are to cover the dimensions of the Great Recession. Or the Climate Crisis. Fortunately, the Christmas season is upon, with its sentimental imagery and homicides. That'll keep them busy.

However, I am also dismayed at Rick Warren being the prime and sole clergy represented in the Inaugural ceremony. You have to wonder if preachers are one area where Obama's judgment falters. Update: Turns out Warren is NOT the sole clergy. Rev. Joseph Lowery, one of the last of the Civil Rights struggle preachers, will give the benediction, also providing social policy and political balance to Warren.

Team of Rivals, Obama Style

Since our last episode, PE Barack Obama has introduced his Green Team (as advertised here), his Sec. of Education, and Wednesday he is scheduled to introduce his surprise choice for Interior--Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado--and as Agriculture Sec., former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack. So how can we characterize his picks so far?

First, high-powered. Senators, governors, former cabinet secretaries, heads of this and that, and a Nobel Prize winning scientist. Lots of midwesterners and westerners (as predicted here), and lots of diversity: Latinos, Asian Americans, women (including a member of the LGBT community), African Americans and whites of both genders. Not a lot of what you might call ideological diversity: instead, a marked preference for get-it-done types who share Obama's policy goals and his professed belief in reaching out to opponents and often-opposing stakeholders.

That's the striking MO of Ken Salazar, a political centrist, maybe not a great fit in the Senate, but whose nomination, says the Washington Post, most environmentalists interviewed praised Salazar's selection, as did leaders of pro-business groups, who described him as a willing listener who recognizes the need for domestic energy and agricultural production, although some green activists really don't like him., and probably some business types don't either. According to the LA Times: " Karen Schambach, the California coordinator for the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, described Salazar as more of a centrist. Still, she expected he would be a "sympathetic soul" in a department that had offered a cold shoulder to the environmental community."

In another area of contention based at least partly on ideology--education--Obama appointed Chicago Supe of Schools Arne Duncan, who has managed to enact and back reforms while maintaining good relations with teachers unions. According to the Chicago Tribune, Many describe Duncan as conciliatory, open to new ideas and realistic about disconcerting trends—but he has not always avoided controversy.... 'He's been pretty willing to fight some political battles about closing dysfunctional schools,' said John Q. Easton, executive director of the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. 'I think he's got a willingness for a lot of ideas, and checking out how they're doing and making changes based on that."

Vilsack is also a midwestern centrist, who ran for prez briefly in 08 before backing Hillary (though if I'm not mistaken, his wife backed Barack.)

So Obama's version of a "team of rivals" seems less about point/counterpoint representatives of different ideological positions than an actual team of former rivals (who either ran against each other or backed different candidates) with the expertise and approach to get things done. One assumes that they professed to be willing to get done what Obama wants done.

It's also a particular kind of team: another area where there isn't much diversity is in the sport of choice. Most of them play hoops: Duncan has been playing in Obama's games for 10 years, and played professionally in Australia after starring at Harvard. But there are others: National Security Advisor Jim Jones played forward for Georgetown, and Reggie Love--Obama's personal aide, played for Duke.

There are a number of high school players, too: UN Ambassador Susan Rice was a star point guard at the National Cathedral School in DC, AG Eric Holder played high school hoops in NYC, and Treasury Sec. Dan Geithner apparently has got some game. Even Hillary played the half court.

If the Shoe Fits: cousin Lemuel sent me this notice from war-torn Canada awhile back, and it seems the appropriate caption to this photo:

Dear World: The United States of America, a quality supplier of ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for its 2001-2008 service outage. The technical fault that led to this eight-year service interruption has been located, and the parts responsible were replaced Tuesday night, November 4. Early tests of the new install indicate that it is functioning correctly, and we expect it to be fully functional by mid-January. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage, and we look forward to resuming full service --- and hopefully even to improving it in years to come. Thank you for your patience and understanding.--The USA

In PE Obama's Saturday YouTube/radio address he named Shaun Donovan as his choice to head the Housing and Urban Affairs Department. With experience in New York City and federal government, business and academic research, Donovan looks like another stellar pick. He trained as an architect so, Obama says, he knows houses down to the wiring--an interesting qualification to point out, since making housing energy efficient and green energy capable will be an important energy, environmental and economic policy. Then there's this article that say Donovan foresaw the home mortgage crisis four years ago. There's some footage of Donovan in this YouTube, so you can see if you get an instant sense of confidence just looking at him, as I did.

Hooverites

So the Bushites avoided a stock market meltdown Friday by announcing they will pony up some money somehow to prevent GM failing and beginning a cascade that will result in millions--perhaps tens of millions--of Americans losing their jobs.

Among the many ironies is that it was Dick Cheney who told the Senate Republicans that if they failed to act they risked Republicans again becoming defined as the party of Hoover.

And that's just what they are. The Bushites are bowing out, and here come the Hooverites, the new name for the Republican party.

Props on Friday to the news media that covered this story. On TV I note Campbell Brown and especially Rachel Maddow, but I didn't watch all that much so maybe there were others, too.

The Perils of Stupidity

“The consequences of the Senate Republicans’ failure to act could be devastating to our economy, detrimental to workers, and destructive to the American automobile industry unless the President immediately directs Secretary Paulson to explore other short-term financial assistance options.” So said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and so say we all.

But while all this was going on Thursday what were the cable news channels chattering about? Trying to pin the scandal caused by a delusional Illinois governor on Barack Obama. Why? Because it's a story they understand. It's scandal. It's politics. And as outrageous as the charges against Gov. B are, it's irrelevant.

It's clear from Fitzgerald's charges that Blago's desperation to find some way to make bucks from the Senate appointment was because he knew he couldn't get anything out of the Obama transition. Everything after that is a minor political story, maybe a minor legal story, and ordinarily worth following. But not 24/7. And not yesterday.

Because in the meantime, a particularly venal, self-important, narrow-eyed nasty and stupid group of Senate Republicans were trying to hold millions of people hostage to satisfy their union-busting cravings.

That was the truly important story of December 11, but it was just too hard for them to report. (The exception to an extent is Rachel Madow and to a lesser extent, Keith.) If the news media isn't all over this story Friday--assuming that by 9 a.m. Paulsen hasn't released some billions of chump change out of his $350 billion which represents tax money paid by those millions who are going to lose their jobs if he doesn't--then there's really no reason to watch them anymore. They are irrelevant.

We're in very, very dangerous waters right now. The usual stupidity may well be enough to sink us.

Energize

Early Wednesday it was supposed to be Jennifer Granholm but by later in the day several news organizations settled on someone else as Obama's Energy Secretary: Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winning scientist and current head of the Livermore Lab at Berkeley. A truly excellent choice! An actual expert in the field, with administrative experience, and most particularly, with a proven record of turning around an institution--Livermore--towards developing alternative green energy, specifically to address the Climate Crisis.

"A Rocket Scientist in the Cabinet" says Ambinder, and a man "untainted by Washington's caution on climate change..." Fabulous! This guy really gets it--so much so that he transformed his life to address the Climate Crisis. Plus another Asian American in the Cabinet, this time of Chinese descent.

The same reports say that Obama has chosen Lisa Jackson for Environment. That she is a black woman is in itself an enormous step forward, partly for reasons I deal with in this post at Dreaming Up Daily. She happened to grow up in New Orleans, and did college at Tulane--another significant connection because New Orleans is where a mostly black and largely poor population bore the brunt of a disaster with a large environmental component, at several levels. It's simply crucial to involve nonwhite Americans in the mostly white environmental movement.

Before Jackson became chief of staff to current New Jersey governor Corzine, she was the state's environmental commissioner and worked for 16 years in the federal EPA--so she's got tons of applicable experience.

One of her bosses at EPA was Clinton's director Carol Browner, and Browner is expected to be named to a new White House position, coordinating energy and environment. So there's an established working relationship. The caution is that the Clinton environmental record is not particularly bold--my impression was that in 8 years they mostly managed to undo some of the previous GOPer damage and make incremental moves forward. That lack of boldness may not have been Browner's fault--we'll see.

Said to be the choice to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality is Nancy Sutley, Los Angeles deputy mayor for enviro, and a politically prominent Lesbian. Her previous posts were in the area of water and water quality--a very important issue as the Climate Crisis dries up the West, as well as other areas of the world.

Not such great news involves Interior, although these stories are more speculative. This one says there are three names: John Berry of the National Zoo, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva and my member of Congress, Mike Thompson. In the Eureka paper today, Thompson seems pretty adamant that he's not been contacted by the transition team, so his appointment seems less likely than these press reports indicate. I know nothing about John Berry except that he was former head of Fish and Wildlife Foundation and an assistant secretary at Interior, but I suspect that if any of these three but Grijalva is named, it might indicate that Interior isn't getting the status it should have. Maybe white guys need a token appointment (Berry is being pushed by gay groups), but not to this post. It should be as high powered and forward looking as Energy, Environment, Commerce etc. It's not a sop to the "sportsmen" lobbies.

Native American issues are important for Interior, and to be fair, Thompson has the support of at least one local Indian tribe-- Native peoples are a higher proportion of his constituency than most-- and he has a good record on Native issues. Kevin Gover is another name, less prominently mentioned, who is actually Native (Pawnee and Comanche), but is a bit controversial due to allegations of favoritism to gaming tribes in a previous post at Indian Affairs. (He's currently head of the Museum of the American Indian in DC.) But any Native is going to be controversial within the Native community. At least according to this report, Gover's chances have improved lately as Thompson and Grijalva have drawn fire. But Gover's office also denies he's being considered. As I've said before, a Native American as Interior Secretary would be a huge step forward.

Thursday Obama announces Tom Daschle as Health and Human Services Secretary, and holds a press conference that's supposed to be about health care. But this Illinois governor farce is likely to derail that. If you're interested, the best analysis of what we know so far--at least what's in Patrick Fitzgerald's findings--is here at 538. Basically it says that RB's most outrageous statements were made to his own staff, and he was much more cautious in what he said--and asked for--with others. The only contact indicated that's anywhere near the Obama transition is with a union official, and the language of the document indicates RB was contemplating more direct communication but hadn't yet tried, and his conclusions about Team Obama not offering anything could well have been more common sense and third party judgments than based on having asked the questions himself.

Anyway, this is going to come up and I hope Obama either says a lot more about any contacts with his transition team or explains more fully why he can't talk about this. I also hope he gets in the face of the GOPer Senators threatening to kill the auto company deal, and makes the stakes plain--the devastating effect on jobs and the economy and future capabilities--as well as the clear motivation: union-busting.

By the way, Granholm (Gov. of Michigan) got mentioned in media buzz because she met with Obama on Wednesday, stating later that they talked about the economic recovery proposals. But there is still a post directly concerning that--Secretary of Labor.

Massive Distraction

This is the first test of the Obama administration: will the pulp fiction-level scandal created by the governor of Illinois distract the Obama government and the country from what really, really needs to get done, and fast?

Obama has been very good at handling this stuff before, so there's every reason to hope he will this time. He starts with an incredible 79% approval rating (according to CNN) so he's got a lot of margin. People really, really want him to succeed. He'll need to balance being forthcoming with moving on.

As for that governor whose name I can't spell and refuse to ever learn how to spell, here's my bet: by the time you read this, he will have checked himself into a psychiatric facility claiming he's been under stress and acting irrationally. That is, he'll do that if the dude isn't really, really crazy.

Forty Days and Forty Nights

That's how much longer we're stuck in the desert of the Bush administration. I can almost handle Bush's burnishing bullshit legacy interviews, although the attention the media is lavishing on them is infuriating. Is saying that al qaeda and Iraq had some connection the same as saying Iraq was implicated in 9-11? WHO CARES? The sooner we forget about these assholes, the sooner we can concentrate on the immense real problems we've got to solve.

But I'm also beginning to suspect that forty days is more than enough time for the Bushites to screw things up even worse than they have. This is a very delicate moment, and if the Democrats and the Obama team allow the Bushites to manipulate things like the bridge loan to the auto companies so that Obama's hands are tied for years to come, they and we will be reaping the whirlwind very soon.

There has to be some order very soon. Already the most vulnerable are suffering, and it won't be long before many more are added to that list. Already the effects of this Great Recession will be felt for years after it's over, as investments, retirement and savings deplete and disappear. Then it gets worse.

We really only have to get through the next two weeks without significant damage. Then the Obama cabinet will be complete, everybody goes on Christmas vacation, then the new Congress comes in after the new year, and we're off.

Cabinet Watch

Today, PE Obama appoints General Eric Shinseki as Veterans Affairs Secretary. Apart from the brilliant multiple significance of this appointment (here's Ambinder, here's me), it was a Surprise.

More surprises in store, since nobody's sure what's coming next. Especially since (Politico reports) Governor Kathleen Sibelius has taken herself out of the running. She was among the favorites for several posts. According to the Wall Street Journal (which has been right but also spectacularly wrong on appointments), a new job may be created for someone to supervise Climate Crisis and energy policy across departments, and that is a factor in who might be appointed to Environment, Energy, etc.

The Journal thinks Interior is between Arizona Rep. Raul M. Grijalva and former Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber. As I've mentioned before, it's policy vs. executive experience, but there's no reason they both can't get Cabinet jobs. (Kitzhaber at Transportation, for example.) Similarly, this HuffPost columnist makes a strong case for Grijalva as a progressive environmentalist, also good on Native American and environmental problems. But a lot of what he says also makes Grijalva a good EPA choice. And there are other White House posts for policymakers in these overlapping areas. Maybe we'll know more on Monday, but again, I'm hoping for some voices from the progressive side (like Grijalva) in the new appointments.

As for who replaces Hillary in NY... I've got increasingly mixed feelings about Al Giordano at the Field, but his piece on why Caroline Kennedy would be a great as well as popular and sentimental choice is pretty convincing.

The Great Recession

Officials finally admit the U.S. is in recession--and has been for a year (talk about a lagging indicator.) Then Friday's job report was a thunderbolt: not only a loss of 533,000 jobs in November and other terrible numbers for the month, but figures for the previous few months revised to show hundreds of thousands of more jobs lost than admitted before.

Together with the grim and grinchy financial sector (though on the unemployment news, the stock market naturally went up), this adds up to something economists and squawking heads don't have a name for--worse than a regular recession, not quite the Depression. So I'm calling it the Great Recession for now.

At least it focused some congressional minds on saving the U.S. auto industry from contributing several million more unemployed. Bridge loans are in the works--if not yet bridges to better companies, at least bridges to the Obama administration and a Congress that can get something more lasting done.

Meanwhile, the Obama transition seems focused on the next round of Cabinet appointments, rumored to be Environment, Energy, Agriculture and Interior. With announcements due perhaps Monday, what's interesting is both the complete mystery about who will be appointed, and (maybe not coincidentally) the lack of big (or at least well-known) names. About the only one with any sizzle is Kathleen Sebelius, and she's mentioned as a possibility for Energy or Agriculture, or Something.

Absent now from the speculated possibilities for EPA is Robert Kennedy, Jr., who took himself out of the running for Hillary's New York Senate seat. Possibly because cousin Caroline Kennedy is interested.

Well, I'd really like to see Robert Kennedy at EPA or Energy. These appointments are opportunities to go left of center, for better balance overall. There needs to be an Asian at cabinet level, too, if at all possible. At least VPE Joe Biden picked a notorious liberal economist for his economics advisor: Jared Bernstein. But with so little to go on, speculation is pointless. And even more important, no fun.

The World According to Zakaria (and other matters)

When I commented on Obama's foreign policy appointments, among others, over at Dreaming Up Daily, I forgot to mention this Newsweek article by Fareed Zakaria, which takes a broad look at America's place in the world and Obama's considerable foreign policy challenges. It's well worth reading it all, but here at least is his conclusion:

"President-elect Obama has powers of his own, too. I will not exaggerate the importance of a single personality, but Obama has become a global symbol like none I can recall in my lifetime. Were he to go to Tehran, for example, he would probably draw a crowd of millions, far larger than any mullah could dream of. Were his administration to demonstrate in its day-to-day conduct a genuine understanding of other countries' perspectives and an empathy for the aspirations of people around the world, it could change America's reputation in lasting ways.

This is a rare moment in history. A more responsive America, better attuned to the rest of the world, could help create a new set of ideas and institutions—an architecture of peace for the 21st century that would bring stability, prosperity and dignity to the lives of billions of people. Ten years from now, the world will have moved on; the rising powers will have become unwilling to accept an agenda conceived in Washington or London or Brussels. But at this time and for this man, there is a unique opportunity to use American power to reshape the world. This is his moment. He should seize it."

Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow is crusading on behalf of the auto companies versus the banks, on the basis of class bias, and she may be having some effect. After mentioning it on one show, showcasing it on another, some Senators were noticeably noting the discrepancy between the hundreds of billions in blank checks to the banks, and the fuss over a fraction of that for auto manufacturers. Senator Chris Dodd was like a wild man.

One irony is that money went to the banks so they would lend it out but they aren't doing that--and because they aren't lending to businesses, let alone consumers, some 40% fewer people are buying cars, creating the need for the Big Three to beg for loans from the federal government.

Late Thursday, ABC was reporting that congressional Dems sent a letter to the Bushites telling them they'd better carve out some chump change for the auto companies from the $700 billion bailout fund. Or General Motors could be gone before Obama gets to the White House.

Economist Paul Krugman has been using the word "scared" lately when confronted with economic prospects. He's especially worried about the unemployment numbers, that we could be losing a half million jobs a month. The first test will be Friday's monthly employment report. You may know the numbers by the time you read this--how close to 450,000 are they? We could hope he's been studying the Great Depression a little too closely.

Update: Seems Krugman was a bit conservative. Official job loss (so it's more that this) was 533,000 in November.