Obama Re-Constitutes

There's more: "Obama Re-Constitutes" >>

Advice For Obama About Iraq: Voices From The Past

President Barack Obama has made clear that, while he isn't going to do anything rash, he intends to make a clean break from many Bush administration policies, and in particular those regarding the Iraq war. That sounds like great news to me.

But, I'm a believer in history, and in the lessons of context that it teaches. It's a good idea to listen to voices of experience, from the past, and Obama should heed them. Here are a couple:

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's current there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"
Then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, in 1991.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."
Former President George H.W. Bush and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, in their book "A World Transformed" (1998).

It all seems a bit confusing. But I am hopeful that President Obama is a student of history and can learn from it. Clearly, our rulers of the past eight years have been astonishingly oblivious to its lessons.

There's more: "Advice For Obama About Iraq: Voices From The Past" >>

While Watching Inauguration, Thoughts Of A Long-Dead Sibling

My only sibling, a sister, was killed in an auto accident in 1981, only three weeks after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as president. Today, while watching the inauguration of Barack Obama, I thought of her, and what she would think about America today if she's been watching this on some fourth-dimension TV set.

"An African-American president, in 2009? I thought it would take a century," I can almost hear her say. Then, during the parade, "They're a great-looking couple. Listen to the screams -- it's like Elvis came back from the dead. ..."

"Joe Biden? I remember that young smart-mouth from back in the Seventies. He was still in the Senate last year, and now he's vice president? Unbelievable."

I felt sad that my big sister, who would have been pushing 55 now, didn't live to see this day.

I also felt great pride in America, more pride than I've felt in a very long time.

After 28 mostly depressing years, it really is, at last, "morning in America." I hope you can see us now, Sis.

That's all.

There's more: "While Watching Inauguration, Thoughts Of A Long-Dead Sibling" >>

Oaths Have Consequences

In the eight years since Dubya committed perjury when he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, we seem to have forgotten that the Presidential Oath of Office is not an introduction to a speech, but a legal, enforceable oath.

Through eight years of dictatorial rule by an imposter placed in office by a judicial coup, we've forgotten that the president has actual duties he must fulfill or be removed from office and prosecuted for malfeasance.

Hilzoy explains how the Oath of Office binds Barack Obama to constitutional duties ignored by Smirky/Darth and why those duties give him no choice but to prosecute George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and their whole mob organization for war crimes.

Some Facts For Obama To Consider

(1) According to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".

(2) According to Article VI of the Constitution, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

(3) The United States is a party to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

(4) As Dahlia Lithwick reminds us, the Convention Against Torture not only prohibits torture, it imposes a set of affirmative obligations on its parties.

SNIP

It seems to me that these facts imply that if Barack Obama, or his administration, has reasonable grounds to believe that members of the Bush administration have committed torture, then they are legally obligated to investigate; and that if that investigation shows that acts of torture were committed, to submit those cases for prosecution, if the officials who committed or sanctioned those acts are found on US territory. If they are on the territory of some other party to the Convention, then it has that obligation. Under the Convention, as I read it, this is not discretionary. And under the Constitution, obeying the laws, which include treaties, is not discretionary either.

On Thursday, Eric Holder, Obama's nominee, for Attorney General, stated categorically in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, countless television cameras, the FSM and everybody:

"No one is above the law."

That doesn't just mean that neither the new president nor any member of his administration may break the law or undermine the Constitution. It means they have the affirmative duty to enforce the law, including international treaties.

Failing in that duty - breaking his Oath of Office - in the name of "moving forward" or "bipartisanship" or "changing the tone" or getting 80 votes for the economic stimulus is a crime in and of itself for which brand-new President Obama would deserve impeachment.

Not prosecuting Bush war crimes is not an option.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "Oaths Have Consequences" >>

The Right Way to "Move Forward"

edger makes the case for pushing Obama hard to name a special prosecutor for Bush/Cheney war crimes and treason.

Yesterday George Will, of all people, was comparing Obama refusing to prosecute Bush and Cheney to Ford pardoning Nixon.

If a far right crazed wingnut can get it right, why can't the rest of us?

This comparison is one that we can use to good effect, but only if we do it continuously and loudly.

He's got the evidence, the passion, Jane Hamsher and The Petition.

Read the whole thing, then, in the immortal words of Blue Girl: Sign the fucking petition already!

There's more: "The Right Way to "Move Forward"" >>

Be a Patriot: Challenge Obama

Kai Wright at The Root explains why Obama can't be the new Lincoln until dissenters force his hand.

We all know by now that Barack Obama fancies himself a modern Abe Lincoln. Few people begrudge the national pride Lincoln's memory evokes, so Obama can be forgiven for his repetition of the comparison—the grand Springfield, Ill. campaign launch; the team of rivals; the Lincoln inaugural Bible.

But as we prepare to swear in our 44th president, at least one memory of the Lincoln era has been entirely unwelcome: the vocal, progressive dissent that drove the Great Emancipator to earn his name.

Lincoln's political stance was as neutral on slavery as it was steadfast on restoring the national union. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave," he wrote in 1862, "I would do it." As other commentators have pointed out, that uncomfortable historical reality should remind us that the political pragmatism in which Obama is now draped has its limits; moderation is too easily confused with acceptance of deep injustices.

There is, however, an additional lesson to be learned from Lincoln's reluctance to end slavery: that meaningful dissent is essential for democratic change, no matter who is president.

From the Civil War's start, abolitionist rabble-rousers clamored for more lasting goals than mere preservation of the Union. Frederick Douglass incessantly cajoled Lincoln, whom he called "a brave man trying against great odds to do right." He demanded Lincoln to declare that emancipation was an explicit aim of war. He saw no conflict between the abolitionists' clear alliance with the president and their need to demand more of Lincoln.

Sadly, there's little appreciation for Douglass' brand of political tough love today.

Disappointed with Barack's inaugural invitation to freakazoid homophobe Rick Warren? Pissed that Obama's being nice to Congressional repugs? Furious the president-elect's "stimulus" plan has tax cuts instead of a minimum wage hike?

Then stop yelling at your significant other and kicking your dog; make your voice heard where it can join with other progressive voices to push Obama left.

At Change.gov you can send Obama your own ideas or vote for other people's ideas. Thousands of people vote every day to move issues and suggestions up on the priority list.

But whether Obama and political pundits want to hear from progressives is beside the point. History proves that those of us who want to see the purported mainstream broadened cannot afford to sit out the Obama revolution.

SNIP

It could be that Obama gets this, too. Perhaps he believes the clamor for progressive government must come from outside of the White House; maybe he's cloaking himself in centrist robes to create cover for bold reforms. After all, many of the stimulus-plan details he's floated so far are nothing short of precedent shattering. I certainly hope that's the case.

But Hillary Clinton had this much right during her primary bid: Hope's not enough to beat back decades of right-wing entrenchment. We're all going to need to think less about Lincoln and more about Douglass, who put it this way, when rejecting Lincoln's insistence that unity trumps justice, even as a practical matter: "We have pursued that middle path. It is compromise, and by it we have reached the Civil War with all its horrid consequences. The question is shall we start anew with the same old path?"

Speak now, or forever hold your peace.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic.

There's more: "Be a Patriot: Challenge Obama" >>

Barry at Ben's

Man, I'm movin' to D.C. Is this cool or what?

What does the president-elect order on his first Saturday afternoon since moving into town? A chili dog and cheese fries.

Barack Obama dropped in Saturday afternoon for a bite to eat with Washington's mayor, Adrian Fenty, at Ben's Chili Bowl, the venerable diner in Washington's U Street district.

Obama said it was his first time visiting Ben's Chili Bowl and "it was terrific." The expectation is that Obama _ already at ease in big cities from his time in Chicago _ will venture into town more than President George W. Bush, who rarely made forays into unofficial Washington.

After Obama's motorcade wandered through the U street district, passing the African-American Civil War Memorial and a flea market selling shirts that bear his face, he and Fenty surprised the restaurant around lunchtime. Patrons shrieked with delight and surprise as they saw his face. A mother blushed as Obama held her baby in his arms. The president-elect and the mayor moved slowly through the restaurant's crowded rooms, shaking hands and getting pictures taken with patrons.
Still, they came there to eat. "Where the food at?" he finally asked the counter staff, drawing laughs from them and nearby patrons.

He and Fenty ordered a house specialty, a Chili Half-Smoke _ a quarter-pound half pork and beef smoked sausage on a steamed bun with mustard, onions and chili sauce _ along with a big helping of some cheese fries.

They found a small table. They had the popular food. They even chatted it up with nearby customers at their tables. But something was still missing: the shredded cheese. Obama yelled for some _ "not the Velveeta" kind, he said _ and it was quickly delivered.

Word must have gotten out he was in the area: After Obama and Fenty had their meal and left the building, dozens of people who had lined up before security barriers cheered him on as walked toward his motorcade.

There's more: "Barry at Ben's" >>

Stimulus: Too Much is Nowhere Near Enough

We've had a good time lately reciting the nearly endless list of conservative republican failures. Is there anything these chumps can't fuck up? Is there anything they've ever been right about?

No, of course not. But in the current discussion of the economic stimulus we see the results of the repug's singluar post-Reagan success:

They've convinced the nation and the world that government spending is bad.

Even when government spending is patently necessary, obviously the only way to avoid utter disaster, the discussion is not "on what" and "how soon" but "how little can we get away with."

How about a five-year moratoriam on the word "deficit?" Because all those times that repugs were mendaciously proclaiming "deficits don't matter," they were accidentally telling the truth.

As James Galbraith explains in his new book, the economy-destroying policies of the last thirty years have actually proven that cutting taxes and spending almost always causes inflation and/or recession, and raising taxes and spending almost always causes economic growth without inflation.

And the worst thing any government can do is spend public resources propping up capital markets (Wall Street) at the expense of workers in the real economy.

Sound familiar?

By letting concern about deficits shrink his stimulus plan while the U.S. economy is literally disintegrating for lack of public spending, President-elect Obama is ensuring the stimulus - and thus his presidency - will fail.

Paul Krugman, Concience of the Economy:

"I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible. If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years."

So declared President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday, explaining why the nation needs an extremely aggressive government response to the economic downturn. He's right. This is the most dangerous economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it could all too easily turn into a prolonged slump.

But Mr. Obama's prescription doesn't live up to his diagnosis. The economic plan he's offering isn't as strong as his language about the economic threat. In fact, it falls well short of what's needed.

SNIP

The bottom line is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job.
Why isn't Mr. Obama trying to do more?

SNIP

Whatever the explanation, the Obama plan just doesn't look adequate to the economy's need. To be sure, a third of a loaf is better than none. But right now we seem to be facing two major economic gaps: the gap between the economy's potential and its likely performance, and the gap between Mr. Obama's stern economic rhetoric and his somewhat disappointing economic plan.

Krugman explains that the economy is currently falling about $2 trillion short of what it should be producing. Obama's $775 billion plan, with its $300 billion in counter-productive tax cuts, offers about 20 percent of what's needed.

John Judis at The New Republic pleads for a World-War-II-sized stimulus.

I am not suggesting that the United States start a world war in order to solve the world's economic problem. But I am suggesting a strategy that could be called the fiscal equivalent of war.

It would consist not merely of updating or repairing the nation's infrastructure, but in undertaking massive new investments that would expand the scope of American industry, and address other urgent problems in the process: global warming, over-reliance on petroleum, and the need to revive America's domestic manufacturing capabilities--not just to provide jobs, but also to provide tradeable goods that can reduce the country's current account deficit.

... Are we not at some point going to have to go beyond repairing roads and bridges in our conception of public spending and public works, and contemplate the kind of ambitious industrial expenditures that the country made on war production in 1941?

I still believe that Obama is playing a long and deep game, several steps ahead of Senate repugs. But I'm with Jane Hamsher who explains why Obama inspires confidence but the stimulus plan doesn't.

Go to change.gov and tell Obama that $2 trillion on real, job-creating stimulus is the bare minimum required.

And if he still insists on throwing a bone to irrelevant and undeserving repugs, he can say "You were right: deficits really don't matter."

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic.

There's more: "Stimulus: Too Much is Nowhere Near Enough" >>

Why the Biggest Obstacle to Fixing the Economy is Religion

When the oh-so-"moderate" evangelicals whom President-elect Obama is working so hard to please turn on him and attack his efforts to repair and modernize the social safety net, don't be surprised.

Order this copy of Free Inquiry and read the print-only article by Gregory Paul: The Big Religion Questions Finally Solved.

In that article, Paul demonstrates why the relgious must oppose social advancements like progressive taxation, universal health care, strong unions and free public education or else face their own extinction.

Because in every industrialized nation on the planet, low levels of economic disparity, high middle-class economic security and a strong social safety net correlate strongly with widespread secularism.

In other words, the more dysfunctional a society is, the more religious it tends to be.

Analyzing numerous large surveys of world populations, Paul finds:

Among the first world's 19 prosperous democracies, all but the United States have adopted pragmatic, progressive and secular socioeconomic policies that maximize the financial security of the middle class (that is to say, the majority of citizens.)

In most first-world countries, it is hard to lose middle-class status - no western European or Australian goes bankrupt due to overwhelming medical bills. These high levels of financial security, lower levels of income disparity, and more modest rates of societal dysfunction reduce personal stress levels to the degree that middle-class majorities in western Europe, Canada and Australia feel secure and comfortable.

This security and comfort being achieved, the number of citizens who feel the need to seek the aid and protection of supernatural deities has sunken to historic lows and citizens abandon their former churches in droves.

In addition, comprehensive governmental social assistance programs displace much of the faith-based charitable complex that churches have historically used to extend their influence over the lay population.

Moreover, secular societies tend to favor other pragmatic social policies such as extensive sex-education and domestic violence intervention that further surpess societal dysfunctions.

The popular secularization these pragmatic policies induce is accidental, but nonetheless the effect is so powerful that is has occurred in every progressive first-world democracy. it has occurred despite the absence of a large-scale organized atheistic movement and has yet to be reversed in any country by a major religious revival.

Wonder why "religious leaders" so admantly oppose economic support programs that would help their own congregations? Because they know, at least subconciously, that the greatest threat to religion is a strong, successful, secure society.

To thrive, or even survive, religion needs a frightened, insecure population and a weak, incompetent government that drives people to seek succor in religion.

So when Rick "I have unlimited compassion for the poor and sick" Warren exhorts his congregation to fight Obama's economic stimulus plan and universal health care, read Paul's article and you'll understand why.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "Why the Biggest Obstacle to Fixing the Economy is Religion" >>

50 Wasted Years

Imagine how the last half-century would have been different if Allen Dulles had not freaked out on New Year's Day 1959.

If instead of isolating Cuba, Dwight Eisenhower had heard echoes of our own revolution in Fidel Castro's overthrow of the despicable dictator Batista.

If he had said, hey, instead of handing a gift to Krushchev, why don't we try to co-opt this Fidel fella for ourselves?

If in April 1961 JFK had told the Bay-of-Pigs CIA to go fuck itself and made lemonade by cancelling the embargo and making Cuba a trading partner.

If instead of ensuring Cuba became the last, humiliating reminder of our idiotic "Commies? Eeek!" policy we had made Cuba the first example of our "we support popular movements" policy.

Yeah, yeah, Cold War, Mafia, Goldwater, blah, blah, blah.

The truth is that for 50 years, the United States' policy toward Cuba has been that of a 14-year-old boy afraid to strip in the locker room.

Barack Obama won Florida, which should be all the evidence anyone needs that the fanatic anti-Castro old-timers in Miami have lost their political clout.

President-elect Obama can drop trou and cancel the embargo sure that it will goose the economy without political harm.

Sure, too, that finally acting rationally toward Cuba will be a quick, easy, cost-free way to show the world that real Change has come to America.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic.

There's more: "50 Wasted Years" >>

What You Should Know About Rick Warren

Whether you think Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inaugural is a stroke of genius or a fatal mistake, it's important to make sure we know who Rick Warren is.

Warren vocally opposes gay marriage, does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Warren has done a masterful job at marketing himself as a "new" kind of evangelical with a "broader agenda" than just fighting abortion rights and gay marriage. He dispatches members of his congregation to Africa to perform AIDS relief and has positioned himself as a great crusader for bringing his "purpose-driven" pabulum to the world.

Beneath the sheep's clothing lurks a culture warrior wolf. After the Saddleback forum, he told the Wall Street Journal that the only difference between him and James Dobson was that of "tone." After insisting that his agenda was "broad," and holding himself out as an impartial arbiter of the forum, he declared that voting for a "Holocaust denier" (i.e., someone who is pro-choice) is a "deal-breaker" for many evangelicals. Obama was pressured to talk about "abortion reduction," but Warren likens such rhetoric likening it to Schindler's List: an attempt to save some lives but not end a "holocaust."

In the world of the "broader agenda" evangelicals, when liberals advocate for gay marriage, they're stoking the culture wars; when a "broader agenda" evangelical crusades against it, he's merely upholding biblical standards. In that tradition, Warren in October implored his followers to vote for Proposition 8 because "there are about 2 percent of Americans are homosexual, gay, lesbian people. We should not let 2 percent of the population...change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years." Warren called opposition to gay marriage a "humanitarian issue" because "God created marriage for the purpose of family, love and procreation."

Warren, a creationist, believes that homosexuality disproves evolution; he told CNN's Larry King in 2005, "If Darwin was right, which is survival of the fittest then homosexuality would be a recessive gene because it doesn't reproduce and you would think that over thousands of years that homosexuality would work itself out of the gene pool."

Warren protests that he's not a homophobe; it's just that two dudes marrying, in his mind, is indistinguishable from an adult marrying a child, a brother marrying his sister, or polygamy. He thinks his AIDS relief efforts represent an elevated form of Christianity over those non-evangelical do-gooders whom he compares to "Marxists" because they're more interested in good works than salvation. The rejection of the "social justice" gospel in favor of the salvation-focused evangelicalism that has come to dominate the definition of "Christian" lies at the heart of the religious right agenda to marginalize liberalism and harness its political power.

Warren represents the absolute worst of the Democrats' religious outreach, a right-winger masquerading as a do-gooder anointed as the arbiter of what it means to be faithful. Obama's religious outreach was intended, supposedly, to make religious voters more comfortable with him and feel included in the Democratic Party. But that outreach now has come at the expense of other people's comfort and inclusion, at an event meant to mark a turning point away from divisive politics.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "What You Should Know About Rick Warren" >>

Real Leadership on Real Health Care Reform

In case you missed it among all the idiotic "reporters" Blago-blabbing in today's press conference, President-elect Obama made specific point-blank promises to establish genuine universal, affordable health care in this country in the next year.

"The time has come -- this year, in this new Administration -- to modernize our health care system for the twenty-first century; to reduce costs for families and businesses; and to finally provide affordable, accessible health care for every American."

And:

"Some may ask how, at this moment of economic challenge, we can afford to invest in reforming our health care system. Well, I ask a different question -- I ask how we can afford not to....If we want to overcome our economic challenges, we must also finally address our health care challenge."

And in case you've forgotten how to interpret discussion of the American health care catastrophe in simple English, this is not Clintonian double-talk about "managed care," nor is it Smirky/Darth pious lies about the power of the market. It's not a whiny Clinton excuse about an uncooperative Congress. It's not a trillion-dollar giveaway to insurance companies masquerading as a prescription benefit.

This is something we haven't see in this country in 56 years. Since Harry Truman left office, in fact:

A liberal Democratic president offering in straightforward language a difficult, expensive but essential solution to a clear-and-present danger to the General Welfare.

We are so used to a deep-space vacuum of leadership in Washington, each demonstration of that quality by Barack Obama makes it more, not less, difficult to believe we really did elect him.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ...

There's more: "Real Leadership on Real Health Care Reform" >>

Question Time

The Obama transition web page just gets more and more intriguing.

... the Obama transition team has just rolled out an innovative new feature on its Web site, hoping to carry through on the President-elect's campaign promises of greater government transparency.

It's a page entitled "Open For Questions," in which anyone can submit questions to the transition and, subsequently, to the administration.

The rub, though, is this: The public is able to vote on how much they'd like certain queries to be a priority, and the voting tally is visible -- which means it'll be tougher for the Obama team to not answer questions that participants clearly want answered.

Here's how it works: Users get three options in voting on a question. They can vote in favor of a question being answered; they can vote against it being answered; or they can flag the question as inappropriate.

The Obama team is clearly exposing itself to a bit of a risk here. It could find itself choosing between answering an uncomfortable question and ducking one that the public is clamoring for an answer to. And if the state of the country fails to improve (or gets even worse) over the next few years, the public could also end up registering more and more negative questions.

The new page is here.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic.

There's more: "Question Time" >>

Not Another Whitewater

Yes, the wingnut freakazoid remnant of the republican party will try to turn the downfall of Illinois Governor Rod Blagejovich into the new Whitewater, but it won't work.

Down deep, they know that Obama is unlikely to hand them an easy way to defeat him, so their only hope of surviving as a political party is to harass him nonstop with a non-scandal like Whitewater.

They think Blagejovich is the new Whitewater, and I hope they spend every dime and ounce of energy they have into trying to make it so.

For those who have been living in the Rove bubble for the last year: Barack Obama is neither Bill Clinton, who couldn't help but look corrupt even when he was just stupid, nor Hillary Clinton, who couldn't help stonewalling even when she had nothing to hide.

Not only is there nothing about Blagejovich to hurt Obama, but unlike the Clintons, Obama knows how to make it clear and convincing that there's nothing there.

There'll be something to panic about soon, no doubt.

But Blagojevich ain't it.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Not Another Whitewater" >>

The View from Europe

There's more: "The View from Europe" >>

Speak Your Mind on Change dot gov

Used to be all you had to do to justify spending the next four years bitching about the government was - vote.

That's not enough any more. President-elect Obama has raised the bar for civic participation at Change.gov.

Submit your email address, and you get daily updates on the issue of the day.

Updates that expect you to respond with your own ideas.

Concerned about the economy? Iraq? Health care? Environment? Immigration? Terrorism? There's a "agenda" page on two dozen different topics, and each one expects you to contribute with your own emailed ideas.

Tell your own story on the "An American Moment" page.

Complain about Obama's latest personnel announcement or make suggestions for tomorrow's press conference by clicking "Join the Discussion" right on the front page.

Yeah, yeah, maybe it's just a way of pacifying the savage mob. But if all it does is give you a feeling of satisfaction from directly participating, that's more participation than any other administration has offered.

And there's some evidence that the Obama campaign really is listening to the liberal blogosphere.

This week, torture supporter John Brennan dropped out of consideration for CIA Director or any other position in intelligence. He did so citing days of furious opposition to his appointment by Glenn Greenwald and others.

As Big Tent Democrat wrote at TalkLeft:

In case people were wondering, THIS is why you do not wait to express your "concern" about issues and personnel.

Whether you're a Blue Dog worried that we dirty fucking hippies are going to force Obama to establish communism, or a progressive worried that Clinton triangulators are going to smother his liberal ideals, go to Change.com and give Obama a piece of your mind.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "Speak Your Mind on Change dot gov" >>

For This, Let Us Give Thanks

Make your whole Thanksgiving by clicking here.

Be sure to scroll down to the photos and video. Imagining four years of stories like this is more than a beaten-down liberal can stand.

There's more: "For This, Let Us Give Thanks" >>

Vetting Bill for Hill

There's more: "Vetting Bill for Hill" >>

"We Have A Mandate"

If you've forgotten over the past eight years what it's like to hear a president speak knowledgably and specifically on the issues of the day, to answer questions directly and in complete English sentences, then I have a real treat for you.

Here are the video clips of President-Elect Barack Obama's second press conference on the economy in two days; the third will be tomorrow.

First half of press conference below; second half after the jump.

For those who can't watch video, here is the text of his opening remarks.







Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic.

There's more: ""We Have A Mandate"" >>

Doing FDR One Better - Not for the Last Time

In 1933, FDR became the first president to incorporate a relatively new technology to communicate directly with the American people.

In 75 years, including 60 years of televised speeches, press conferences and photo ops, and even Reagan's 1981 establishment of the weekly radio address, no president has improved on the direct simplicity of FDR's Fireside Chats on the radio.

Until today.

Barack Obama has posted the first of his weekly YouTube addresses to the nation, a modern-day replacement of the old-fashioned weekly radio addresses. In this one, Obama urges immediate Congressional action on the economy:

For us elderly luddites who haven't quite mastered the U-Toobz, Obama's video talks will also be broadcast on radio.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "Doing FDR One Better - Not for the Last Time" >>