"It means something more threatening..." (VIDEO)

From Rachel's show last night:

I think that the situation that I find genuinely frightening right now is that you have a ramping up of Biblical language, language from the anti-abortion movement for instance, death panels and this sort of thing, and what it's coalescing into is branding Obama as Hitler, as they have already called him. And something foreign to our shores, we're reminded of that, he's born in Kenya. As brown, as black, above all, as not us. He is Sarah Palin's "not a real American." But now, it turns out, he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel, unjust rulers to which all these Biblical allusions are directed who should be slaughtered, if not by God, then by just men. So there's a parallel here with Timothy McVeigh's t-shirt on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing. He said the tree of liberty had to be watered by the blood of tyrants. That quote, we saw at a meeting where Obama was present carried on a placard by someone with a loaded weapon.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

To correct one thing Mr. Schaffer said, the Secret Service recently stated that after the initial spike of threats, things seem to be cooling off.

They better be right.

President Obama's Town Hall with Chinese University Students (VIDEO)

The Fireside chat for November 14, 2009

The President looks back at a week where we honored those who serve on Veterans Day, and mourned those we lost at Fort Hood. He discusses the review he has ordered into the Fort Hood incident, and pledges to stand by our servicemen and women, as well as our veterans, as his most profound responsibility.

MSNBC: Obama's Speech in Alaska on Afghanistan and the Veterans (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Michelle does Sesame Street's 40th Season Premiere (VIDEO)

Joseph Cao actually comes through...

I reported in this space (back in August), Joseph Cao, the Republican Congressman from Louisiana who replaced the ultra-corrupt William Jefferson, was considering voting for the House Bill.

Turns out, he did the right thing. He voted for the House Bill, the only Republican to do so.

As much as I want many, many, GOP Pelts nailed to my wall come November, 2010, I'll admit that I'm considering giving him money for his re-election campaign. Cao may just be the only non-white face left in the GOP House. He represents an overwhelmingly black and liberal district, and actually represented the wishes of his constituents, which is what a Congressman is supposed to do. His reward for doing the right thing shouldn't be losing his job.

Touchdown!

The House passes the damn bill.

The Fireside chat for November 7, 2009

The President condemns the "despicable" attacks at Fort Hood, honoring those who were killed and injured. He also commends those who stood up to help and console those affected: "even as we saw the worst of human nature on full display, we also saw the best of America."

Please help the Spokesjerks (VIDEO)

From Think Progress:

Actor and comedian Andy Cobb, who used to be the spokesman for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, has teamed up with Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films project “Sick for Profit” to produce a new ad in favor of health care reform. In the ad, Cobb calls himself a former “spokesjerk” for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, and says that his job was to “sell you the worst product in American history: private health insurance.” Cobb calls attention to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) for his significant contributions from the health care industry, and asks him to vote in favor of health care legislation with a public option. Watch it:

BREAKING: Again?!?!?

Shooting in Orlando leaves eight dead.

Epic (VIDEO)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The 11/3 Project
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Disadvantages of being the President's Daughter... (VIDEO)

In that, the President will discuss your grades in public:

Taking the time to read Audacity of Hope past page 10...

My main standard, in dealing with fervent opposition to the President, particularly as it comes to define itself from the left, is a simple one: Did any of y'all actually read Audacity of Hope?

Now, this is not an effort to boost Books Sales. I just figured that anyone who actually took the time to read Audacity of Hope (first published in 2006) wouldn't at all be surprised by the Barack Obama that is now the President of the United States.

Yet, we're suffering through a week long Woodstock of Misery, fearturing (frankly) whiny Liberals bitching and moaning about all that could have been with the Obama Administration.

And again, stop with the "One Year in..." crap. He was elected one year ago today. He didn't actually gain Executive authority until January 20th. Last I checked, we Liberals actually liked the Constitution. Skipping the fact of it now, for the sake of a week of bullshit stories seems a bit hypocritical.

In thinking about all this, I am reminded of two things. One is from a speech the future-President gave in Powder Springs, GA:

"You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

And of course, the statement he made on Page 11 of Audacity of Hope (apparently, Arianna and most of the Huffington inteligentsia stopped reading on Page 10).

I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not ail, of them. Which perhaps indicates a second, more intimate theme to this book-namely, how I, or anybody in public office, can avoid the pitfalls of fame, the hunger to please, the fear of loss, and thereby retain that kernel of truth, that singular voice within each of us that reminds us of our deepest commitments.

I write all this because, I read a piece by John McQuaid in the Huffington Post today (as well as Bob Cesca, who's a reliable contributor).

Mr. McQuaid (and Mr. Cesca, too, I'd bet), actually read Audacity of Hope past page 10:

As Jon Stewart put it, "so when does 'hope' turn into 'change'?" As Arianna points out, we still don't know. To any outside observer it sure looks like Obama has lost his campaign mojo and gotten crushed in the whinging gears of Washington's political apparatus. But I'm not so sure.

I've been in Washington since the early 1990s. During that time, let's face it: very little happened. Well, that's not quite right: a lot of things happened, many of them consequential. There was a presidential impeachment, a government shutdown, and several military campaigns and wars. But when you get right down to it, what did all that mean in terms of the way the government ran and its basic priorities? Very little.

The basic structure of American politics -- the array of interest groups and party structures, the government's basic assumptions about what was politically possible and desirable -- didn't change much at all. Mainly, well, it got stupider. Media coverage got stupider. Electoral politics got stupider. And, especially during the Bush administration, government itself got stupider, or at least prone to spectacular breakdowns. With the assent and encouragement of the White House, large swaths of the federal government became hostage to narrow-minded interest groups of one kind or another that simply didn't have a stake in making it work.

Meanwhile, the world was changing. Fast. Big problems such as global warming and collateralized debt obligations emerged. They were catastrophic and just plain weird, and they didn't fit any of our usual political paradigms. When the government can't respond effectively to the real world, it's going to pile one disaster on another.

Obama clearly recognized this problem -- a government adrift in a revolutionary age, with all its constituent parts hardwired to stay that way -- and set out to change it.

But there was never going to be a revolution. Obama ran on change, but he also made clear that he is a centrist and an institutionalist. He believes in making things work, in practical results -- not in blowing things up and starting from scratch.

As a result, the poetry of the Obama campaign has been transformed into the software users manual of the Obama White House.

This is not to deride the software manual approach. Most of the work of actually reforming government is a) politically very, very hard and b) not especially inspiring or even interesting to the media or the public. That includes big stuff like guiding health care reform through Congress. Or lower-profile stuff like staffing scientific agencies with scientists rather than hacks. At every turn, there are obstacles large and small that have been in place for decades and can't easily be dislodged.

So I'm willing to cut Obama some slack. I think his approach is substantive where those of some of his immediate predecessors were variously incremental, empty or dangerous.

But Obama's problems are more than merely rhetorical. (Tom Friedman's suggestion for a lofty thematic fix, "Nation Building at Home," even if basically correct, was politically suicidal as slogans go.) I'm still wondering: Can someone who is temperamentally conservative and pragmatic, and who clearly doesn't relish political combat, ever make truly revolutionary changes? Or in our system, is this the only kind of president who can? That's the riddle we're all facing right now.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-mcquaid/obama-was-never-a-revolut_b_345714.html

UPDATE: 1:24pm. Read Cesca's piece, and it's all right. I'm not a fan of "blame Rahm" ideology, and I wasn't comfortable with him even coming close to agreeing with Arianna (which he did), but hell...it's his piece.

Never let a good ego get in the way of the facts...

It's hard not to respect Daily Kos for starting a Liberal Revolution on the Internet, and for that, he has my thanks and respect.

But it's also hard to ignore when he lets his ego get in the way of the facts, which in my mind, he has a tendency to do:

Thus, I offer Kos's take on last night's elections:

This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Wow. While there's something to that in general, in reality, for this particular election...ehhhh, not so much.

1. Despite the "Republican Wave", and Democrats "abandoning their principles", the night wasn't a total disaster for Democrats. Besides the House victories (see below), we held onto Mayorships in the South that were supposed to go to Republicans in Charlotte and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Washington State passed Marriage Equality for Gay-Americans. Washington State and Maine both THUMPED Tea-Bagger favored Tax Resolutions, and the New Jersey Legislature managed to stay Democratic despite the Christie win.

Granted, these are small wins, but considering how animated the Glenn Beck crowd was, particularly in the "Obama-ain't-from-here" South, these wins shouldn't be discounted.

And you'll note the source for No. 1. Yeah, it was the Daily Kos.

2. And somehow in this "Republican Wave", the House Democrats snared themselves two more votes for Health Care, as both new Congressmen favor the House Legislation.

3. And sorry, Kos...I know you got a line to push, but exit polls are showing that Obama (of whom you were clearly speaking) was not a factor in either of the Virginia or New Jersey races.

"On Obama's First Year in Office..."

I was listening to the radio today, coming back from Costco. The Ron Reagan Show was on, and he was asking his callers to give Obama a letter grade for, and I quote, "his first year in office."

Okay, um...Math geniuses? The President was sworn in on January 20th (remember the Chief Justice flubbed the oath? A bunch of people with purple tickets -- sorry, Lonnee -- were stuck in the tunnel of doom? Me and Heidi were watching the parade from the comfort -- and warmth -- of my living room?)

Today is November 3rd.

(Sigh.)

Nevertheless, we are starting a process that is sure to be repeated three months from now...grading the President's first year in office.

Well, I'm going to ignore Arianna's bull@#$% column. It is the firm position of this blog that people who run for Office (as Arianna has), and wind up with .55% of the vote (as Arianna did) don't get to give Political advice to anybody, much less someone who figured out how to elect the first African-American guy President of the United States.

It is the stated mission of this blog to explain to people the "whys" of President Obama's decisions. I knew going in that he was going to take fire from the Right, but I also kinda knew it was going to come from the Left as well...and boy has it ever.

Thus, I leave you with two articles that are must-read, perspective-builders. The first is from Obama '08 Campaign Manager David Plouffe, who (as politely as possible) tells Arianna to stick it:

Frustration about the pace of change, even disagreement on select issues, of course is understandable. But stepping back a bit, as those of us in the Obama orbit have learned to do, reveals an administration that already has made a significant down payment on the change so many fought for last year. I remain confident in the president's unique ability not just to lead us through the many challenges and crises of the moment, but also to accomplish the tough, smart, long-term projects of energy and health care reform -- problems that Washington has long ignored but that will secure a more equitable and prosperous future for all Americans.

...

Arianna Huffington has written much that I agree with. But when it comes to her opinion on the president and his record so far, or her suggestion that there is some great difference between the president and the candidate, I have to register the strongest possible dissent. A year after our historic victory, I have never been more certain that Barack Obama is uniquely suited to lead the country at this unparalleled moment. His values; his ability and desire to think long term; his determination to avoid the easy road of political expedience and to rebuild trust between the American people and their government -- these are exactly what American needs right now. As on any journey, there will be twists and turns, ups and downs. But the change so many of us fought for so passionately last year is becoming a reality in front of our eyes, if we focus squarely enough to see it. And when the decisions he is making today finally resolve into a complete picture years down the road, we will find ourselves living in a stronger, fairer, and more prosperous America. And we will cherish the small part all of us played in electing this unique leader, a man befitting this critical moment in our history.

But there's another one from a guy named Dylan Loewe, who's a contributor to the Guardian Newspaper in London. He too had a very effective piece in today's Huffington Post, this time all-too-politely telling my fellow Liberals (and Arianna by default) to stick it:

What Arianna calls timidity, I call patience.

Campaigning is not the same as governing. In 2007 and 2008, Obama never needed Congressional approval for the executive decisions his campaign made. He never had to worry about securing Joe Lieberman's vote. Governing is more complex, certainly less pure, and noticeably more incremental than most of us would hope. But in American government, even in the midst of revolutionary progressive change, things take time.

It was the same way, by the way, with the Obama campaign. Judging Obama's presidency based on his first 9 months in office is like judging his campaign based on its first five. During that time, as Arianna notes in her column, Obama had difficulty connecting with voters and often felt that the campaign lacked the mojo he had hoped for. He was choppy in debates, often disappointing supporters and worrying campaign aides. And for months and months he trailed Hillary Clinton by double digits, causing such turmoil among his fans that he found himself surrounded by donors and top-tier supporters begging that he change course.

But he didn't change course, despite those who demanded it. He took the long view, saw the road to victory, and never took his eye off that ball.

In that sense, Obama has governed just as he campaigned. Despite calls for him to change strategy by those on the left, including many on this site, Obama has held steady to the strategy he and his team first envisioned.

Dylan also has this interesting bit about Triggers. Now, I still think they're worthless, but:

And of course, there is health care reform, which should pass by the end of this year, and will likely cover 95% of Americans. Any objective observer should consider such a feat to be the biggest domestic legislative accomplishment since Medicare in 1965.

There are those who will complain, as Arianna has, that Obama is more concerned with courting Olympia Snowe's vote than with providing the most progressive policy possible to the American people. But at this point, it's not clear that is what he's doing. We do hear that privately, the White House is pushing for a triggered public option, which would most likely earn Snowe's vote. But I have a hard time believing that winning Snowe's vote is the only reason the White House is pushing for a trigger.

The robust public option that Nancy Pelosi promised would be in the House bill just a week ago is so horribly watered down now that it will actually have higher premiums than private insurance. With higher premiums, there is no way that the public option will actually do anything to control costs. But many on the left would rather the symbolic victory than the policy victory. They would prefer a public option of no real value then a trigger that might have some teeth.

The White House surely must recognize that they are more likely to get a robust public option in the bill, one which will have the intended effect of reducing costs, if they tie it to a trigger. And if the left would stop criticizing the trigger and instead start pushing to define it as a progressive one, the best of both worlds could come to fruition. After all, a trigger that would require insurance companies to reduce costs over the next five years, or else risk a public option tied to Medicare rates, is more likely to actually reduce costs than the one in the current House bill. Does the White House want Olympia Snowe's support? Of course they do. (Let's not forget that that same campaign Arianna is such a fan of was big on bipartisanship.) But in this instance, it may well be that the best policy is aligned with bipartisanship - a true rarity in Washington.

The Fireside chat for October 31, 2009

While there is nothing to celebrate until job numbers turn around, the President cites the recent dramatic turnaround in gross domestic product as a sign of better things to come. He also applauds the fact that the Recovery Act has now created or saved more than a million jobs.

The Jon Stewart Fox News Takedown (VIDEO)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For Fox Sake!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Ezra Klein explains Health Care on NewsHour (VIDEO)

Who ya gonna trust?

On Health Care Reform, we have to look at reality.

The current draft of the House Health Care Reform Bill is over 1900 pages long.

The Senate HELP Committee Bill was shorter (600 pages), but about as complicated.

There are going to be Lawyers (and Lawyers who I know personally) who are going to have a hard time slogging through this sucker, much less understanding all the bells and whistles associated with it.

I would put your chances of understanding the bill on your own, without aid of a summary or breakdown, as not very good.

I'm not saying you're stoopid, but hell...there are Senators who are going to be voting on the actual bill who don't have a clue as to what's its all about.

Yes, I'm talking to you Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut...

These people I would call stoopid, and do it to their face.

If you are a Single Payer advocate (like I am), and are generally in favor of Liberal Health Care Reform (like I am), and of course, a Public Option (which is a big HELL YES), watch three people:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (WV)
Sen. Tom Harkin (IA)
Rep. John Dingle (MI)

If these three guys say the bill is okay, then the bill is okay. Period.

John Dingle was interviewed by Ezra Klein this afternoon. When asked about the House bill's shortcomings, he put it like this:

Look my friend, I'm too smart to criticize a bill that has taken this much time, effort, and suffering to get to where it is. I will only say this: You know me, and you know I have always stood for a single-payer plan. In the process of compromise and legislating, I believe this is as good as can be done now. This is a plan that gives choice to our people and is peculiarly suited to the United States and the system of medicine we now have.

That's about how it breaks down.

Harry? Harry Reid?? The one in the Senate? (VIDEO)

Harry Reid...that Harry Reid...asking for the people to push the Senate.

Okay. Push!!

TPM: Pawlenty no longer a "serious" candidate for President

If you're turning your back on your own party (in this case, what's left of the GOP), and supporting a "Conservative Party" whackadoodle for Congress, if you're going to align yourself with the Palins, the Birthers, the Tenthers and the like, I can safely assume should you be the nominee, Obama can start measuring the curtains for Years 4 through 8.

If the GOP is even halfway serious about unseating President Obama in 2012, the only person left on the radar is Mitt Romney (and even he's a stretch).

The Fireside chat for October 24, 2009

The President restates his commitment to small business as key to economic recovery -- from the Recovery Act to Financial Stability to Health Reform -- and pledges more to come.

Kos: Whipping The Trigger...

Daily Kos's McJoan has a version of the article I put up a while ago. I think hers is just a bit better than mine.

Here's the Deal on the Public Option, as far as the White House goes...

I'm going to try to explain the White House's rationale...even though I think their rationale is mistaken.

Basically, there are reports that the White House is trying to water down the Public Option to keep Senator Snowe on board. These reports are mistaken, in that, it makes it sound like the White House is trying to destroy the Public Option. They ain't.

To them, the safest path to passage is to make sure that at least one GOPer is on board, because God forbid on the day of the vote, Robert Byrd is sick (as he has been for the last couple of months. I mean, crickey...the man is 96!) and makes it impossible to break a filibuster.

It's a real concern, but it's not worth passing shit legislation because of it.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid thinks he has an angle on getting an "Opt-Out" Public Option through the Senate...with 60 votes...all of them Democratic. Snowe says she's out if its a Opt-Out...which basically means she's only interested in a trigger that never fires. That makes her a worthless snake in the grass, whom I hope the voters of Maine take care of in 2010 (and if she helps scuttle reform, she won't be back).

Erza summarizes:

On Thursday night, Reid went over to the White House for a talk with the president. The conversation centered on Reid's desire to put Schumer's national opt-out plan into the base bill. White House officials were not necessarily pleased, and they made that known. Everyone agrees that they didn't embrace Reid's new strategy. Everyone agrees that the White House wants Snowe on the bill, feels the trigger offers a safer endgame, and isn't convinced by Reid's math. But whether officials expressed a clear preference for the trigger, or were just worried about the potential for 60 votes, is less clear. One staffer briefed on the conversation says "the White House basically told us, 'We hope you guys know what you're doing.'"

WaPo: Redskins hit rock bottom... (VIDEO)

Off topic, because it is my passion...

Obama refocuses Bailout on Small Business (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Telegraph of London is !@#$!%@

On October 14th, 2009, the Telegraph of London published the following:

United States to send 'up to 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan'

The US is expected to announce a significant surge of up to 45,000 extra troops for Afghanistan after Gordon Brown said that 500 more British troops would be sent to the country.

You might have noticed that didn't happen.

Now, the Telegraph follows up with this headline:

Barack Obama's Afghan troop decision delay provokes anger at Pentagon

President Barack Obama's decision to postpone responding to the military request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan the after next month's run-off election is heightening tensions between the White House and Pentagon.

Who's upset, exactly? Could it be the Telegraph's source who seems hell bent to leather to push a President who won't be pushed???

Seems to me its a Conservative Newspaper with an axe to grind, who might be made that their earlier bullshit prediction didn't come up aces.

David Vitter...racist (VIDEO)

Courtesy of Wonkette. Senator David "Diaper" Vitter refuses to condemn the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to marry a interracial couple. In fact, he goes out of his way not to do so, when every other Politician in Louisiana (Republican and Democrat alike) has done so.



...and...



Maybe a guy who gets caught canoodling with D.C. Hookers shouldn't be telling other people how to be happy, or who to love.

President Obama's Health Care Web Pitch (VIDEO)

Can you smell what the Barack is cooking??? (VIDEO)

Never necessary, but fun nonetheless....

The Fireside chat for October 17, 2009

There's A Rep for that (VIDEO)

Obama's Remarks at San Francisco DNC Fundraiser (VIDEO)

Not much of it, but...



The complete text is here.

A better telescope of the good stuff is right here.

The President's Speech in New Orleans (VIDEO)

Wish I could've gotten the whole Town Hall, but we do what we can.

Incidentally, a 4th Grader asked the President why does everyone hate him. I'll post video as soon as I can get it. Until then, it's at TPM.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

UPDATE: 4:42pm Pacific. Here's the video.

When my fellow Liberals lose their minds...

From Huffington Post. Actual headline:

Is Obama Uncomfortable Around Women?

Amy Siskind, 10.15.2009

President and Co-Founder of The New Agenda

Despite much talk of hope and change, President Obama seems largely tone-deaf to women and women's issues. Post-racial country -- yes. Post gender inequality -- not so much.

First act signed...Lilly Ledbetter Act. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. First Supreme Court Nominee, Sonia Sotamayor. His head of the Domestic Policy Council, head of his Communications Office, his head of Homeland Security (HOMELAND SECURITY!!!), all women...yet he's uncomfortable.

CNN: WHAT THE--?!?!?!? (VIDEO)

CNN did nothing wrong here. They put up a good report...

...but Jesus H. Christ.

Count me as assuming the worst:

Three lines of hate... (VIDEO)

MSNBC: Obama's Speech at the Human Rights Campaign Banquet (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Fireside chat for October 10, 2009

WaPo: Dumbest...blogposting...ever.

I like Ezra Klein's work, and all...but...

America has already gotten used to Obama. It's common to talk about the "overexposure" of the first African American president in history. It's ordinary to see him hedging on important political priorities, and failing to please his most ardent supporters. It's normal to see him called communist by his enemies and spineless by his friends. America, to its credit, has adjusted to its first black president with ease and swiftness.

But the rest of the world hasn't necessarily done the same. This prize, which came as Obama contemplates a troop build-up in Afghanistan and hectors the international community on financial regulation and global warming, suggests that there is some reservoir of relief and amazement for America's young president. The international gushing may seem absurd to us, as the schoolyard lionization of an older brother often seems funny to a sibling, but it can be used to our advantage. Leaders in allied countries no longer run against America, and now the Nobel Committee is attempting to welcome America back as the leader of the free world. And it didn't cost us anything. Would that life told more jokes like that one.

Are you freakin' kidding me? Ease and WHAT?!?

Looks to me like the rest of the world is way used to Obama, its this country that has to catch up.

MSNBC: Obama's Speech on the Consumer Protection Agency (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The World is watching...

The news that President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace has got tongues a-waggin’ and keyboards a-clickin’ just about all over the world. To me, the most extreme negative reaction to this news should be mezzo-mezzo; a “meh” if you will. If the Republican Party-slash-conservative movement had any brains left in it that’s how they would have played it.

Instead, we got Rush Limbaugh:

Nobel Gang Just Suicide-Bombed Themselves.

…and…

They love a weakened, neutered U.S and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too.

We got David Frum:

From the age of 20, Barack Obama has collected acclaim, awards and prizes not for his accomplishments (which have always been rather scanty), but for his potential. You think with the guy nearing 50 and elected president of the United States that the prizes for “most promising young man” would cease. But no! The Nobel Committee has just awarded him one more.

We even got a little racism from Erick Erickson (Redstate.com)

I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period.

From the left, the response hasn’t been a hell of a lot better. The most quoted thing I’ve read has been douchebags like Glenn Greenwald (and yes, I reserve my right to call him a douchebag):

We're currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and making clear we reserve the "right" to attack a third. Someone who made meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace. It's unreasonable to expect that Obama would magically transform all of this in nine months, and he certainly hasn't. Instead, he presides over it and is continuing much of it. One can reasonably debate how much blame he merits for all of that, but there are simply no meaningful "peace" accomplishment in his record -- at least not yet -- and there's plenty of the opposite. That's what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous.

Some guy named Jesse Berney (Huffington Post Blogger):

Barack Obama's presidency is 17 days younger than my daughter, and she just figured out how to put Cheerios into her mouth. The Norwegian Nobel Committee made a grave mistake.

Jake Tapper (ABC News...the links to his Twitter account, of which this is a tweet):

Apparently the standards are more exacting for an ASU honorary degree these days.

To top it all off, we even heard from the effin' Taliban:

We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan.

Which made Rush follow up with this:

Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award.

I get the feeling Rush is mad that he just bought his "I get to bash Obama about the Olympics toy" and now the Nobel Committee's taken it away from him.

It strikes me that both sides are missing the point in all this.

The Nobel Peace Prize wasn’t so much a message to President Obama, as it was to America.

It was…in short, the world telling us that this is our last chance with them.

Martin Luther King was awarded his Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 in the middle of the tumult of the Civil Rights Struggle. He would only (unfortunately) be with us for four more years. It’s not hard to imagine the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys and the Michelle Malkins of their day launching a non-stop assault on the integrity of the award just for giving it to King.

But think about what the award conferred on King; it conferred legitimacy. Not only that, it conferred global legitimacy. It was the rest of Planet Earth telling America that we approve of what Dr. King is trying to do.

The number one criticism of Barack Obama’s award is that he is not deserving of it, at least not yet. But, as the Nobel Committee noted themselves, it’s not about whether he deserves it now:

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Again, as with his spiritual predecessor, the President’s award is about global legitimacy. It is another moment wherein the world (at least in the form of the Nobel Committee) is telling America, again, that they approve of what this man is trying to do; and that its time to get your act together.

So what does this do…to the people who hate the President? Is this message going to sink in?

Probably not. If anything, it's going to have the opposite effect in this country.

But the world is watching...

I’m not talking about people with legitimate Political disagreements over policy (like Glenn Greenwald…douchebag though he remains), I’m talking about the people who’s opposition is fueled by the visceral, by his political positions, by his name, and most of all, by the color of his skin; all of whom using the language of violence and threat to make their point.

But the world doesn't care what they think. They just reminded them that they are watching.

They’re watching the threats, the town halls, the guns at the President’s appearances, the Birthers, the Tenthers, the Teabaggers, the Glenn Beck horseshit, the threats against Congressmen and women, the threats against the President himself...

In truth, you want to know when I think the President won the Prize?

The moment Joe Wilson opened his damn mouth.

The moment this lowlife Congressman showed such open, defiant disrespect, unleashing such venom, displaying (sorry to disagree with you, Mr. President) such typical American racism; everything started to change...the health care debate, and the internal political dynamic in this country.

The quiet discussions about violence and threats to the President came out into the open. We had a U.S. Congressman willing to embarrass himself, and embarrass his country to show this in however small a way that he was somehow above or superior to the duly-elected President of the United States.

And the world was watching.

Today, the world decided to send a message right back to America: You did the right thing in electing this man. We respect you for it. We admire you for it.

But how you treat him in the future is going to weigh heavily on how we treat you

What happens now…what happens to our country…if the duly-elected President of the United States, the first African-American (and yes, I count him as one) to hold the position, and Nobel Laureate…is felled by an assassins bullet?

How the world going to look upon us…if we should so cavalierly spit on their judgment?

I don’t think their reaction to us will be kind, nor forgiving. In fact, there’s a part of me that suspects the world will say, “that’s it. You’re on your own.”

The world is watching, and now demands better of us.

And they expect better of Obama, too. Now, granted he has some really solid Foreign Policy successes on his curriculum vitae. Iraq is drawing to a close, however slowly. The President (along with Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell – who deserve a share of this award, if you ask me) is pushing Israel on the Peace Process (and pissing people off). He spoke to both the Muslim world, and to our own racial divide in ways that people are still talking about. He ramped down tensions with Russia. He’s made significant strides in relations with Iran, with a lot more work to come. His work on Environmental policy drew the notice of the Nobel Committee (and the ire of the Right). And his commitment to rid the world of Nuclear weapons is both good Politics, and good Foreign Policy.

Don’t get me wrong, I know there’s a flip side to this coin. He is on a path to accelerate things in Afghanistan (a plan I’m not completely against, to be honest). American Forces have killed far too many civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan (any number greater than one). American Special Forces delivered a lethal warning to Somali pirates (again, which I support). And he has unleashed our drones and our Pakistani allies in Waziristan and the Swat Valley.

The world is watching the President too. Unlike his radical foes, Obama seems to have gotten the message:

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people. And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.

Yes, it is still early in his Administration, and not all of us are satisfied. But there is so much road to go, so many more things to build on and explore.

Can you think of a better man for the job?

I can’t.

(And if you can…odds are they don’t have a Nobel Peace Prize, so…SCOREBOARD!)

HuffPo: The Arizona Threat Matrix...

Obama signs in Arizona vandalized...but with the violent rhetoric on overdrive:

PHOENIX, AZ -- "Kill Obama" was spray painted in purple on campaign signs at two locations in Cave Creek, a suburb of Phoenix, according to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO).

Rejected! (VIDEO)

This was originally posted on TPM (and by extension HuffPo), but I just had to pass it along.

MSNBC: Obama Nobel Acceptance Speech (VIDEO)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

One more thing from Ezra...

From the same article, but a very important point:

[The Compromise] also creates a neat policy experiment: We can see, over time, what happens to state insurance markets that include the national public option and compare them with those that don't. We can see whether the worst fears of conservatives are realized and private insurers are driven out and providers are forced out of business due to low payment rates, and we can see whether the hopes of liberals are right and costs come down and private insurers become leaner and more efficient. Or both, or neither. It's an opportunity to pit liberal and conservative policies against each other, rather than just pitting liberal and conservative congressmen against each other.

Erza Klein on the Public Option Compromise...

Ezra likes it. I'm sensing a trend.

[The Public Option Compromise] gives you an essentially national administrative structure, but also gives states the right to reject the option entirely. It means, in other words, that the blue states get the public option at full strength and the red states get to ignore it entirely.

Nate Silver on the Public Option Compromise...

Nate likes it.

Some of the usual suspects are out this morning with criticism of Tom Carper's compromise proposal to insert a robust public option into the Democrats' health care bill, but allow states to opt out of it by legislative or popular action. I'm not going to call these people out by name because I consider some of them friends and they're doing good, important, productive work. But this compromise is leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated, such as Chuck Schumer's proposal to have a public insurance option that would be forced to negotiate at private market rates.

MSNBC: I'm in... (VIDEO)

And for the record, Keith, I'm in.

Confused? Watch the Special Comment. The complete video is below, take a moment when you can, then donate what you can, when you can. It has the added benefit of being both Political and Chartiable.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Text of the Special Comment is here.

The Fireside chat for October 3, 2009

Lord Knows...

Lord knows I am not the biggest Thomas "six more months" Friedman fan in the world. And I am loathe to mention him in any of my posts, but the crap with that Newsmax scumbag calling for the Military overthrow of the President has put me in a mood, and unforunately, Mr. Freidman has captured it perfectly:

I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.

And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish nationalist as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did.

Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.

What kind of madness is it that someone would create a poll on Facebook asking respondents, “Should Obama be killed?” The choices were: “No, Maybe, Yes, and Yes if he cuts my health care.” The Secret Service is now investigating. I hope they put the jerk in jail and throw away the key because this is exactly what was being done to Rabin.

TPM: Sparkman Case Update. It gets worse.

Okay, this has gone from a case of the FBI trying to tamp down wild speculation, to the FBI knowing good and well what's happened here and not wanting any interference in their investigation.

As I've said before, the less the FBI talks, the closer (I feel) they come to getting these guys.

But as I've said, Talking Points Memo has new details, and they ain't pretty:

When Census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead earlier this month, he was naked and gagged, with duct tape over his eyes. Duct tape also bound Sparkman's hands and feet.

...

The word "Fed" was written on Sparkman's chest, setting off speculation last week that the Census worker and part-time schoolteacher was killed in an act of anti-government sentiment.

Sources also told the AP that Sparkman's Census Bureau ID was found taped to his head and shoulder area -- a detail which may add to that speculation.

And as was reported last week, Sparkman also had a rope around his neck which was attached to a tree, though his feet were touching the ground.

According to Weaver, a 2003 Chevrolet S-10 pickup truck, containing Sparkman's clothes, was about 50 yards from the body.

The Fireside chat for September 26, 2009

From the National Journal...

From Jonathan Rauch: if the Airlines worked like our Health Care System...

"Hello! Thank you for calling Air Health Care, the airline that works like the health care system. My name is Cynthia. How can I give you travel care today?"

"Hi. My name is Jonathan Rauch. I need to fly from Washington, D.C., to Eugene, Oregon, on October 23."

"Yes, I'd be happy to assist you with that. It does look like we can get you on a flight on January 23 at 1 p.m. or February 8 at 3 p.m. Which would you prefer?"

"Neither. I need to be in Eugene on October 23. As in, the 23rd of October."

"I'm sorry, we have nothing open on that date. You might try another carrier."

"I suppose I'd better. Who has availability?"

"I'm afraid I have no way to know that. I have no way to look into their systems."

"Who would know?"

"You can call them individually and ask. I'm sure you can find one."

"Look, I don't have time to call two dozen airlines. It's important that I get to Eugene on the 23rd. There must be something you can do."

"Well, it looks like maybe we could squeeze you in on October 26, if you don't mind departing Washington Dulles at 5:35 a.m."

"Good grief. All right, I suppose it will do."

"Great, thank you, I'll be happy to make that booking for you. That's one flight from Washington Dulles to Chicago O'Hare on October 26. Will there be anything else?"

"Wait, hold on. Chicago? I'm going to Eugene. It's in Oregon."

"Yes, sir. The Eugene portion of your trip will be handled by a western specialist. We'll be glad to bring you back from Chicago to Washington, though."

"You mean I have to call another carrier and go through all this again? Why don't you just book the whole trip?"

"Sorry, sir, but you do need to make your own travel appointments. We would be happy to refer you to some qualified carriers. May I have your fax number, please? Before I can confirm the booking, we'll need you to fill out your travel history and send that back to us."

"Cynthia, I have filled out my travel history half a dozen times already this year. I've told six different airlines that I flew to Detroit twice and Houston once. Every time I fly, I answer the same battery of questions. At least a dozen airlines have my travel history. Why don't you get it from them?"

"We have no way we could do that. We do not have access to other companies' records, and our personnel have our own system for collecting travel history."

"But 95 percent of these questions are always the same. Don't you know that every time I fill out one of these duplicative forms I increase the chance of error? Wouldn't it make more sense to hold my travel information centrally, so that everyone could see the same thing?"

"Sorry, sir, we have no capability for that, and we do need to have your travel history at least two weeks before you fly."

"I don't suppose I could fill out these forms online?"

"No, sir. The forms are only about 30 pages, though. Did you have that fax number, please?"

"I don't have a fax machine. No one faxes anymore. Just e-mail me the forms."

"I'm sorry, sir, we don't use e-mail to transmit records and other personal or secure documents. We keep our records on paper."

"What century is this? You think paper is secure?"

"We do keep all your travel records on low-acid paper and in fire-retardant file drawers. When someone needs access to your records, we make a photocopy and put them in the mail. Or fax. How many items of luggage were you wanting to bring?"

"Two."

"OK, good. We suggest you make luggage arrangements with Rapid Air Transport, though of course you're free to use any luggage company you like."

"Luggage company?"

"Yes, sir. You'll need to arrange baggage transport. Would you like a phone number for Rapid, or would you prefer to find your own baggage company? I'm sure Rapid would be pleased to work with you. All you need to do is sign the Personal Travel Records Release form. Where would you like me to mail that?"

"Release form?"

"Yes, sir. You'll need to sign and fax or mail that back to our Travel Records Department so that we can release your travel records to Rapid. Under the privacy rules, we're not authorized to tell them when or where you're flying without your written permission."

"I suppose I couldn't just e-mail you this permission, or grant it online?"

"No. Did you want a list of luggage carriers for your Chicago-Eugene leg?"

"Let me guess. Rapid doesn't operate out West. I have to find a separate luggage company for the second leg."

"Yes, sir."

"And they'll need more copies of all the same paperwork. And they'll ask me all the same questions. And I'll have to arrange to get my travel records to them by mail or fax. And I'll repeat all this nonsense five or six separate times between here and Eugene, because the providers aren't equipped to talk to each other and my records aren't digitized and no two providers use the same system."

"Yes, sir, that's right! Did you have a preferred fuelist, or did you want a reference for a company to provide jet fuel for your flight?"

"Fuelist. That would be a fuel specialist, I suppose."

"We can make a fuel arrangement for you, but please be advised that the fuelist's charge will be billed separately and you will be responsible for it. We'll need to know where to have that bill sent.

"May I have your flight-insurance information, please?"

"Millennium Travel Care, group number 068832, ID number RS-3390041B."

"I'm sorry, sir, we're not in Millennium Travel Care's provider network."

"You're listed on their website. It says you accept Millennium."

"We did until last week. If you like, you can pay out of pocket for your ticket."

"How much would that be?"

"Yes, sir, I'll be happy to get that price for you. That would be $17,885.70."

"What? For a flight to Chicago? Does anyone actually pay that?"

"I'm sorry, sir, I wouldn't know. I can tell you that different clients and insurers pay different rates. For individuals, the rate is $17,885.70."

"Oh."

"Plus tax. And fuel."

"Is anyone else cheaper?"

"Sir, again, I couldn't tell you that. Carriers don't have public rate sheets. Prices are privately negotiated, so there's really no way you could comparison shop."

"Oh."

"Did you want to go ahead, then?"

"No. I DO NOT WANT TO GO AHEAD. I do not want to go anywhere! I want to jump off a cliff!

"This system is insane. It is fragmented to the point of incoherence. Record-keeping is stuck in the 1960s. Communication is stuck in the 1980s. None of the systems talks to the others. Everyone reinvents the wheel at every stage of the process. There is no pricing transparency.

"In a sane, modern system, I wouldn't have to arrange each leg of my flight myself. I wouldn't have to fax documents around, find and juggle multiple providers, fill out again and again what are essentially the same forms every time I use a provider.

"In a sane system, I would call an airline and it would give me a price for the whole trip, not just for one part of it. It would sell me a safe round-trip journey, instead a series of separate procedures. It would have back-office personnel using modern IT systems to coordinate my journey behind the scenes. The systems and personnel would talk to each other automatically. At the press of a button, once I entered a password, they would be able to look up my travel history. We'd do most of this stuff online.

"In fact, Cynthia, I would be able to arrange a whole trip with a single phone call!"

"Sir. Please. Calm down and be realistic. I'm sure the system can be frustrating, but consumers don't understand flight plans and landing slots. Even if they did, there are thousands of separate providers involved in moving travelers around, and hundreds of airports, and millions of trips. Getting everyone to coordinate services and exchange information just isn't realistic in a business as complicated as travel."

"Yes. I suppose I'm dreaming."

"Was there anything else I could help you with?"

"No."

"My goal today was to provide you with outstanding service. Did I accomplish that?"

[click]

Andrew Sullivan: A New Low.

Ugh.

(Oh, by the way...the following is written by Andrew Sullivan. It does not represent a new low for Andrew Sullivan. Way big difference.)

We still don't know very much about the death of Bill Sparkman in a brutal scene in Kentucky. But the far right is obviously concerned that its violent anti-government rhetoric might at some point be implicated. So what do these people do? Notorious homophobe Dan Riehl pre-emptively asks if Sparkman was a gay child predator, because he had an adopted son. He has no other evidence at all.