Liam

Wow. Is it any wonder the GOP lost the election? Seriously, you need to get in touch with reality. Of the two major party campaigns, Obama ran the positive campaign, McCain the negative one. The voters put their trust in the more positive guy.

I think everyone now recognizes it was a mistake to let Lehman implode. Many people think Lehman's failure caused the current crisis to get worse. Citi is no different (same with the car manufacturers): letting it fail will have enormous implications for the larger economy.

Interesting. But ever see "Jesus Camp"? Indoctrination and evangelizing to the youth is hardly the sole domain of "leftists".

I'm a little late to the discussion, but have to side with kimmy on this. I don't think an honest reading of Palin's statement could allow anyone to claim she thinks we're doing God's work. I think a fair reading is that she's praying the work we do is God's will.

The one big lie the Republican echo chamber convinced itself of this election cycle was that Democrats were afraid of Palin. Not in the slightest. It took a while to figure out how to address her nomination, and Obama hit the right tone by ignoring her, but it's laughable to think anyone was afraid of her. I honestly think the only way Palin can make any attempt at a 2012 run is if she gets out of electoral politics and makes a big name for herself somewhere else (talk radio, the lecture and book circuit) when she can demonstrate a deep grasp of political issues. Even then, she'd have to start a national campaign by early 2011, which does not allow for much time to resurrect her reputation.

I really do not think the GOP will win races if this reflects the mindset of the national party leaders. Are you serious that Palin represents what every successful Republican candidate should be? Do intelligence and interest in larger domestic and international matters count for nothing? Stop kidding yourself - she was not a real conservative. She was, at best, a religious ideologue who was more than willing to benefit from government largesse (bridges to nowhere, the road to the bridge to nowhere, redistribution of oil revenues). Once she passed the theological test all her faults would be covered by the GOP spin machine and right wing radio yakkers. Honestly, aside from Palin's magnetic personality, she contributed nothing to the ticket. If the GOP aspires to put up empty suit candidates because they look good on TV and wear their ignorance like a badge of honor, they will spend quite a lot of time in the political wilderness -- especially in times when people live in fear of losing their jobs and their homes.

The DJIA dropped after election day because it rose 400+ points on election day for no reason. Let me get this straight... people are willing to sell out of the market now, many at a loss, because six months from now, Congress might pass a revision to the tax code. So, they're locking in losses now so they don't need to pay higher taxes in April of 2010? I'd say people are pretty dumb if they take their money out now before an adjustment to cap gains taxes is even announced and before their investments have an opportunity to regain some of the lost ground. Markets are dropping because the distraction of the election is over and people are now starting to see evidence that the economy is really in a recession (news stories of job losses, store closings, etc.). I work in the investment industry (as of this hour ) and I see no evidence that what you're saying is true. Nor am I the slightest bit concerned that 401k's will lose their tax exempt status. Ain't gonna happen.

I think you express one possible explanation, but I don't think people were crying because they think of him like some deity. Most of the people I saw crying were minorities and I interpreted those as tears of joy, tears in the shared success, at long last, of a minority long held out of power, and happiness that voters of all colors mostly put race aside and elected a man with brown skin as the next president. I saw those as tears of pride and joy, not of reverence.

True -- wasn't thinking of them, but they are good examples of rebirth after defeat. In my defense, I was thinking of Mondale, Quayle, Ferraro, Edwards, and Lieberman who tried national runs (without success) after defeat at the national level. Reagan never experienced defeat as a member of a national ticket. Only Nixon was able to rise to electoral success after an unsuccessful national run. It will be interesting to see if Palin tries to match Nixon's success.

Once politicians have the taint of electoral loss, it is very unlikely they'll be resurrected.

Obama has been so under the influence of anti-semites that he named a Jewish man who once served as a volunteer in the Israeli Defense Forces as his Chief of Staff. Let me guess... there's some inverted conspiracy here...?

Not to disagree, but I think she was chosen to make the base feel that she was one of "them": i.e., a Christian fundamentalist. Once she met the theological test, her qualifications were immaterial.

Don't want to hijack the thread, but the notion that social conservatives don't want to engineer society has to be one of the most preposterously false claims in modern politics.

Advice, by it's very nature, is projective to a degree. But even in my advice, I didn't say what I thought he'd do, I merely said what I thought he should do. Actually, your statement about what is in the cards is infintely more projective and conclusory than anything I've said.

The first thing he should do is name a responsible cabinet from the best available advisors, regardless of party affiliation. First to be announced should be his team of financial advisors that is going to reassure the markets that his focus on the economy is going to be laser-like (e.g., Lawrence Summers as his Treasury Secretary, Bob Rubin as economic advisor, maybe a known Republican as budget director, etc.). I'd advise that he fill several cabinet posts with Republicans (keep Gates at the Pentagon, perhaps Hagel as Sec of State). My long term advice would be for him to rule from and for the middle of the country. I think putting people of different ideologies around him would help him toward that aim.

I believe the hypocrite is the red state voter who stands there decrying the evils of welfare queens living off his tax dollars yet whose state economy is augmented with blue state tax dollars. I'd have absolutely no problem if the federal government reapportioned tax revenues so they could only be spent in states where they are raised but I think you'd have an awful lot of southerners rethinking their opposition to federal spending if they were to be cut off. As it stands, though, there IS a national redistribution of federal tax money from mostly northern states to mostly southern states. Isn't it the GOP position that wealth redistribution is socialism?

Obama wants to give 95% of American taxpayers a tax cut. Not all taxpayers pay income tax but all pay social security taxes and other government levies (FICA, for example).

It could also be used as another example of Sarah Palin's attacking Obama for espousing a policy that is remarkably similar to McCain's own position.

Hold on... trying to... lift file of articles... by rightwingers... who turned any... criticism of Bush policy... into... hating... America

My favorite are the whispers that Obama fathered not one, but two black babies.

Oh, and by the way, when Obama said that building more coal plants would end up bankrupting the coal industry, he was referring to costs associated with a market-based cap-and-trade system of controlling greenhouse emissions. Does anyone care to guess which other party's nominee supports a similar cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Anyone? Seriously, I am beginning to think the current GOP should never be in charge of the military because none of 'em can shoot straight anymore.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...0,6104195.story "'That tape' is excerpted from a Jan. 17 San Francisco Chronicle editorial board interview with the Illinois senator. The remarks posted on YouTube include a pledge by Obama to create a cap-and-trade system, under which polluters must buy credits to offset their emissions. Such an aggressive policy, he said, would spur the development of technology that uses cleaner sources of power. "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Obama said. Palin did not mention remarks Obama made elsewhere in the interview about coal's role in the nation's energy future. "But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion," he said. ". . . If we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, we can allow the market to determine, and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue, what's the best approach to take." The Obama campaign called the tape "wildly edited" to take the candidate's remarks out of context." The quote mas made in January. Someone decided to splice it up and post it to YouTube and a coal industry lobbyist (and Palin) now act like this is new or controversial.

The Times already reported the story months and months ago. They even published Obama's statement found on the video. Now you're railing against them for not reporting the same story when there's no story. Khalidi is a noted scholar and professor. Obama said some kind words at his faculty going away party. Numerous people of all faiths (including Jews) have come forward in the past week or more to say that Khalidi is not an anti-semite. I know you want there to be a scandal here and, finding none, are ready to keep flogging the "well, if it was John McCain" line. Whatever. Reporters protect sources of both parties. If you don't believe that, go take it up with Woodward and Bernstein. But you want to play the guilt by association claim? OK, when is Sarah Palin going to be outed as a lesbian? She has said one of her best friends is a lesbian. Therefore, by your logic, since she associates with a lesbian she must also be a lesbian. Right?

If Obama joined 20 years ago (1988) or some time in the early 90's when he finished Harvard Law and moved to Chicago... the difference of a few years is irrelevant. The more compelling part of your response is the sentence about McCain. My post points out this is pretty much what McCain has done. After the 9/11 attacks, Robertson and Falwell unleashed their own version of "God damn America" by blaming Americans for unleashing the wrath of God. AFTER they made these statements, John McCain began palling around with them. Personally, I find it less troubling and less an indicator of bad character for Obama to attend a church whose minister becomes more of a firebrand over time than McCain's deliberate attempts to pal around with Robertson and Falwell, people he knows have made such blatant ant-American statements. Remember? He called them agents of intolerance when he was being the real John McCain. Candidate John McCain is their buddy.

I'd be willing to keep paying taxes at my currtnt rate alongside a 10% cut of federal aid to my region to fix the problem. The problem is that "red" America gets a HUGE chunk of federal $$ to keep their regions habitable. I subsidize them with my taxes -- are they willing to give up their status as welfare queens?