Quoting KingFish: Wow, the condescending snobbery concerning Palin shown here fuels the interest in her more than anything that Palin herself does! Suck up to the Dems? Kowtow to David Brooks? Within minutes, 'F both of these two' was my main thought about their "observations."

Spoken like a true member of Palin's base. It's too bad that you think it's "condescending snobbery" to observe that a politician just isn't up to the task and worse, shows every indication of being unaware of that. Being permanently resentful will get you exactly nowhere in politics. Just ask the PUMAs. Or better yet, go look at the polling data for the two months that Palin was on the national stage. Or don't. That's fine. Like Noam, I'd be thrilled to have Palin be a contender for GOP leadership in four years, exactly the way she is today.

Great discussion guys. I hope to see these two together more often.

Good diavlog. I liked the speculation about Spitzer, in particular. I hadn't thought about that. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, but I'd like to see him get another shot some day.

NOT a great discussion. the silly "horserace" still continues with more beltway gossip parochialism. BHTV needs more political scientists and observers who have a slightly broader perspective than the that of political junkies. this was soooo uninteresting.

Quoting bjkeefe: Spoken like a true member of Palin's base.

Sorry, man, not in Palin's base.

It's too bad that you think it's "condescending snobbery" to observe that a politician just isn't up to the task and worse, shows every indication of being unaware of that.
There are ways to say the candidate is not up to the task without the condescending snobbery, but here, that was clearer than the objections to Palin, thus diluting any impact such objections may have had.

Being permanently resentful will get you exactly nowhere in politics.
Yes, I'm glad the Dems won this time through their zen like calm about Bush!
Can resentment win elections? Yes, it can!

Just ask the PUMAs. Or better yet, go look at the polling data for the two months that Palin was on the national stage.
Perhaps the boat anchor was the head of the ticket?...

Or don't. That's fine. Like Noam, I'd be thrilled to have Palin be a contender for GOP leadership in four years, exactly the way she is today.

And in four years will both Palin and Obama be the same? Doubtful. I'm not even saying she'd be the candidate in four years, or even contend. But

Not me. Spitzer is dead to me. A lot of people worked hard for that guy, and he fucked them over. Same with Bill Clinton.

Edwards too.

Quoting KingFish: There are ways to say the candidate is not up to the task without the condescending snobbery, but here, that was clearer than the objections to Palin, thus diluting any impact such objections may have had.

Sorry, I don't agree. My sense that people who like Palin tend to overreact when she's criticized, lumping in everything they've ever heard said against her, any time anyone says anything. I also think that people who like Palin refuse to admit that they hold her to a lower standard than they would a male politician. She's clueless and she's demonstrated that every time she's been asked a non-softball question. The only thing she can do is rouse the self-selecting rabble, and the only things she has to say to them plays to their basest instincts: it's either a message of "us" vs. "them" or it's "take pride in your ignorance -- I do!"

Yes, I'm glad the Dems won this time through their zen like calm about Bush!
Can resentment win elections? Yes, it can!

If you think "resentment" is the only thing that has Bush's nationwide approval rating at 20%, or that there was nothing else motivating people to vote

clay: Sexual dalliances count that heavily for you?

I enjoyed the diavlog. But Spitzer for NY Senate? I recoil in horror.

People need to choose: be an elected official or be a normal person. Because once they get elected, the bullshit that normal people can get away with is going to cost their team badly. There's no excuse. The rules have been this way for years now. You can argue about the rules, but it's clear enough that breaking them is going to put the ball in your own goal. I like how Harry Shearer puts it: "It's the stupidity, stupid." If Clinton kept it in his pants Al Gore would have been elected. No Iraq war, no global warming denial, hell, maybe not 9/11.

It amazes me that you would resurrect Spitzer. I guess he went to Harvard Law School, so he deserves a pass . . . not! What he did went way beyond his little indescretion. He is a hypocrite and a dangerous bully. He misappropriated the New York State Police to hound his political enemies and he helped bring the financial system to the brink of collapse by turfing out AIG's management and replacing it with guys who turned out not to know much about derivatives. This one AIG example has now cost tax-payers $132bn and counting. Is this the type of "experience" and background that Sarah Palin is lacking? I hope so.

Quoting claymisher: People need to choose: be an elected official or be a normal person. Because once they get elected, the bullshit that normal people can get away with is going to cost their team badly. There's no excuse. The rules have been this way for years now. You can argue about the rules, but it's clear enough that breaking them is going to put the ball in your own goal.

I like how Harry Shearer puts it: "It's the stupidity, stupid." If Clinton kept it in his pants Al Gore would have been elected. No Iraq war, no global warming denial, hell, maybe not 9/11.

Put that way, I agree. I was thinking of the actions themselves, not how the public reacts to them.

It's clear you've got stars in your eyes for Palin, and there's no point in talking about this any further. Last word's all yours.

Curiosity about Palin is not the same as agreement or support, but, hey, I forgot you seem to know everything and can't take being contradicted. I'll let the Washington Post of a couple a days ago take the last word: 5. McCain made a huge mistake in picking Sarah Palin. No subject is more likely to break up a dinner party early than the Alaska governor McCain chose as his running mate. Everyone not only has an opinion about her qualifications (or lack thereof) but also feels it necessary to share those opinions with anyone within shouting range.
Love her or loathe her, the data appear somewhere close to conclusive that Palin did little to help -- and, in fact, did some to hurt -- McCain's attempts to reach out to independents and Democrats. But just because Palin doesn't appear to have helped McCain move to the middle doesn't mean that picking her was the wrong move.
Remember where McCain found himself this past summer. He had won

Quoting KingFish: Curiosity about Palin is not the same as agreement or support, but, hey, I forgot you seem to know everything and can't take being contradicted.

Another example of your insistence on clinging to a belief in the presence of clear evidence to the contrary, but hey, if it makes you feel better to talk like a petulant tween, knock yourself out. <3 Palin 2012! <3

Quoting Salt: It amazes me that you would resurrect Spitzer.

Two arguments in favor: Steve Benen and Anonymous Liberal (via), commenting on the Spitzer op-ed. I don't know all the details of Spitzer's career, but I will say that when I heard him speak when he was gearing up to run for governor, I found him extremely sharp. Politically, it may be a non-starter, but personally, I wouldn't mind seeing him get a second chance. In my dream, he'd be lead investigator into the Bush/Cheney war crimes.

BJKeefe quote: I don't know all the details of Spitzer's career. . . Do you know anything about him at all except for what you read in his oped? He started out as a son of privilege, was investigated, was exonerated and became a professor. Wait! That was Bill Ayers. Spitzer is MUCH smarter: 1600 on his SATs. Obviously, very good with numbers. Unfortunately the only relevant number for taxpayers pertaining to Spitzer is the $132bn and counting that AIG lost after prosecutor Spitzer bullied out their 40 year incumbent management on bogus charges. That is more than a third of TARP outlays so far. This is who you want in the Senate? The only comforting thing about this entire exchange is that from the outset you admitted you had no clue what you were talking about. How many other of your bedrock assumptions are based on such flimsy structures?

Take a couple of deep breaths, Salt. You'll feel a lot better.

Eric Holder as his attorney general. Does no one remember Marc Rich Mr. Holder, the report says, played a major role, steering Mr. Rich's lawyers toward Jack Quinn, a former White House counsel. Mr. Rich hired Mr. Quinn, whose Washington contacts and ability to lobby the president made the difference, according to the report. It says that Mr. Holder's support for the pardon and his failure to alert prosecutors of a pending pardon were just as crucial. The panel criticized Mr. Holder's conduct as unconscionable and cited several problems. It cited his admission last year that he had hoped Mr. Quinn would support his becoming attorney general in a Gore administration. Looks like a great start to a new ethical standard to me!

At last! A discussion about the Clintonites showing up on Obama's payroll. I was surprised thinking a bunch of fresh faces would appear. The reason given here is he has few cronies. I wonder if that's the reason? No cronies. He pulled off a wonderful campaign and raised a lot of money with few cronies. Also, there are 300 million people in the country to choose from. Does anyone else have an explanation for the old showing up in the Obama cabinet not the new. John

I agree... the fact that Noam 'knows' she's a 'diva' and craves the limelight, is appalling stupid. Before John McCain brought her in from the wilderness, how exactly was she pushing herself into the limelight? She was running for the V.P. of the United States, so of course she's in the news... duh!!! Sarah Palin is as much a 'diva', as Bobby Jindal is a 'born-again' Catholic.

Quoting piscivorous: Eric Holder as his attorney general. Does no one remember Marc Rich

From The Reality-Based Community:

Holder as AG: Here We Go
Posted by Jonathan Zasloff

Newsweek is reporting that President-elect Obama has tapped former Clinton Deputy AG Eric Holder to be his new AG. Despite my general desire that the AG's party should be different than the party in power, I think it's a good choice: Holder is a very professional guy, experienced at running the department, a former judge, and a tough anti-corruption prosecutor. People in the US Attorney's Office in LA had great respect for him.

Paging the long-dormant piscivorous ...

Expect the right wing outrage machine to quickly spring into action. They will insist that Holder was somehow involved with Clinton's last-minute pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Ahem. Continuing ...

Don't believe a word of it. The "evidence" that they will offer for this is a "report" generated by the House Government Reform Committee chaired by that paragon of nonpartisan judiciousness, Dan Burton.

Essentially, what happened was that Rich's attorneys came to Holder in the waning days (hours?) of the Clinton Administration with the pardon request. Holder didn't know much about it, and he referred them to

Does anyone else have an explanation for the old showing up in the Obama cabinet not the new.

It could be that Obama is, in fact, a Clintonist. The only serious incompatibility that I could discern between B&H Clinton policies and Obama policies was her support for the Iraq War. But so what? Clinton is a sleazy character, but that doesn't negate the positive things done in his administration. The Obama campaign was run on slogans of change, but substantively there may no significant differences between Obama and Clinton. If so, relying on old hand Clintonistas (experience) may make sense. He'll probably also make room for some of the young idealistic anti-Clinton crew, and he'll be the ultimate Decider, so we'll see how it plays out. Having said all that, there are some very questionable early appointments and semi-confirmed rumors: Rahm Emanuel is an absolutely awful choice for Chief of Staff. I can only hope he doesn't last long. E. Holder may have done some of the dirty work in Clinton's appalling pardons. If so, bad choice. Clinton as Sec. State doesn't sound like a particularly smart move either. Robert Gates (nuclear hawk) must leave DOD and be replaced by someone

There is an African American talk show host in Los Angeles (also a fairly well known local civil rights attorney), Leo Terrell, and he was upset about the Clinton people that are coming on board with the Obama Administration. From what I gather he thought that change meant a set of new faces, too. Admittedly, it caught me by surprise. John

BJ wrote:

Another example of your insistence on clinging to a belief in the presence of clear evidence to the contrary

The Washington Post wrote:

of the 60 percent of voters who told exit pollsters that McCain's choice of Palin was a "factor" in their final decision, the Arizona senator won 56 percent to 43 percent.

That seems to be some evidence.

It's bad that Holder got burned on the Rich pardon, but you have it weigh it against the rest of his career, which looks pretty good (see HuffPo). I think his background in prosecuting corrupt officials will come in handy.

He is the consummate Washington insider -- a familiar fixture in the Clinton administration, but well-known to Republican administrations as well. Best known as a prosecutor, Holder was fresh out of law school when he was assigned to the newly formed public integrity section of the Justice Department. There, he helped prosecute several high-profile defendants, including a judge, a diplomat, an assistant U.S. attorney and a leading organized crime figure.

He's going to be a busy man.

Quoting Bobby G: BJ wrote:

The Washington Post wrote:

That seems to be some evidence.

Your evidence has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Great discussion guys. I hope to see these two together more often. Agree

Utterly bizarre suggestion for S of State: Ross is an Israeli-lobby political operative spending the 1990s trying to force the Palestinians to accept Israel's 'generous offers', meaning 100,000s of jewish colonists. His enabling of Israeli chauvinism was a force for bigotry in world politics and absolutely the wrong face for American diplomacy.

Perhaps with Eric Holder as AG President Elect Obama will reconsider the closing of Guantanamo as he seemed to make no objection to President Clinton's holding of Haitian refugees there with out the benefit of counsel, denial of habeas corpus, or the option of applying for asylum. Yes this represents a breakthrough to a new ethical standard.

Broader? You mean wider than the slim distance between the two ideological extremes? Summers, Geithner...with Rubin makes three of the most incompetent money men in the Clinton administration responsible for frakking up East Asia and Russia (or was that just the first tremors of the current troubles?). No amount of contrition would con me into accepting these market fundis!

Quoting bjkeefe: Good diavlog. I liked the speculation about Spitzer, in particular. I hadn't thought about that. I don't think it'll happen anytime soon, but I'd like to see him get another shot some day.

Only if he pledges to legalize prostitution should Elliot Spitzer be allowed back into mainstream politics.

Quoting piscivorous: Perhaps with Eric Holder as AG President Elect Obama will ...

Perhaps. You can pretty much say anything if you preface it with perhaps, though, can't you? Doesn't necessarily make it true or even likely, though, does it? For example: Perhaps the reason we haven't heard from piscivorous lately is that his ISP shut down access because he was serving up kiddie porn. Or: Perhaps piscivorous will one day be man enough to acknowledge when his off-topic FUD-mongering gets shot down, rather than just looking for another piece of shit to hurl against the wall.

And also, read this.

Perhaps I have been reading too many leftist blogs lately Firedoglake: “I think I am having an aneurysm. Why in the name of all that is sensible would Barack Obama want a Clinton re-tread as AG? Not just any Clinton re-tread, nope, the brain trust behind the Marc Rich pardon. Do you know how many brilliant, talented lawyers with great judgment he has advising his campaign?” Wonkette: “The only problem for Holder is that, like many longtime Democratic party people, he was forced to do a bunch of slimy white trash stuff by Bill Clinton back in the ’90s.” Democrtinderground.com
He got Chiquita execs off with a hand slap for paying $1.7 million to rightwing death squads in Colombia, to slaughter 4,000 union leaders and workers. For fucking Attorney General! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-ko..._b_141919.html... Obama might as well appoint Albert Gonzales as A.G. That's what Holder and Gonzales do for a living--they get big powerful, multi-millionaire white men immunity for mass murder of the poor and the brown.
Change you can believe in?

I love it Pisc, You ask an obvious, fact-based and legitimate hypothetical, they connect you to kiddie porn. Truly bizarre and below even their usual sub-standards. Ah the tolerance here. Perhaps someday the clique here will refrain from profane and ridiculous attacks on everyone they disagree with. But then, one is limited to the weapons in one's arsenal. More on Holder at The Nation: "Quick! Name the veteran Department of Justice insider who, shortly after the USA Patriot Act was signed into law as the Bush administration was proposing to further erode barriers to governmental abuses, said that dissenters should not be tolerated?

Who invoked September 11, explicitly referencing "the World Trade Center aflame," in calling for the firing of any "petty bureaucrat" who might suggest that proper procedures be followed and that the separation of powers be respected?

John Ashcroft? No.

Alberto Gonzales? No.

It was Eric Holder, the man who has reportedly been selected by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States."

Quoting piscivorous: Perhaps I have been reading too many leftist blogs lately

No, I think you're reading just about the right number to keep your basket of cherries filled.

Change you can believe in?

Yup.

Quoting harkin: I love it Pisc,

You ask an obvious, fact-based and legitimate hypothetical, they connect you to kiddie porn.

You never miss a chance to clutch your pearls, no matter how much you have to ignore context, do you? Since all you ever do on this site is look for reasons to be fauxtraged, let me just say that I'm happy to have obliged your tight little ass. Ooooh. I said another bad word. Mark it down, quick!

Quoting KingFish: ... the condescending snobbery concerning Palin ...

Time for another exciting round of Guess the Columnist!

Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians. Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting.

With the exception of Miss Alaska, of course.

Even Sarah Palin has blamed Bush policies for the GOP loss. She's not entirely wrong, but she's also part of the problem. Her recent conjecture about whether to run for president in 2012 (does anyone really doubt she will?) speaks for itself:

"I'm like, okay, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is.... And if there is an open door in (20)12 or four years later, and if it's something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."

Let's do pray that God shows Alaska's governor the door.

Give up? [Added] See also. [Added] Nugget (via).

This morning NPR reported the story, and pointed out that Holder's Rich decision was made on "a very busy day" (which is doubtless true), and that Holder later expressed regret about not spending more time on the Rich matter. Do you feel all better now? BO can appoint whoever he wants. If unethical actions ensue, they will come to light and tarnish the administration. But you have to admit it's amusing and entertaining to hear NPR trying to preemptively blunt critisicm of this guy in such a transparent and sophomoric way. It's not as if Holder ever said the pardon was wrong. So why does it matter that he was "busy"? And what is NPR's interest here?

Quoting Simon Willard: And what is NPR's interest here?

To tell the truth? Or, at least, to report the news accurately? Lofty concepts, I grant.

Quoting bjkeefe: to report the news accurately?

News? No, seriously. This was not just a detail buried in the story - NPR really made a point of the fact that Holder was busy that day of the pardon, eight years ago. Why should we care about that? Why is that news? My only hypothesis is that Holder might have to publicly field a question about Rich during a Congressional hearing. If the public has been conditioned to understand how busy Holder was, then it will be more palatable if he should make a surprise declaration that the Rich pardon was a mistake. But then my hypothesis implies that NPR is trying to spin things. Hey -- I'm looking for a better hypothesis if you've got one. If not, we'll wait for the Congressional confirmation hearing.

Quoting Simon Willard: News? No, seriously. This was not just a detail buried in the story - NPR really made a point of the fact that Holder was busy that day of the pardon, eight years ago. Why should we care about that? Why is that news?

My only hypothesis is that Holder might have to publicly field a question about Rich during a Congressional hearing. If the public has been conditioned to understand how busy Holder was, then it will be more palatable if he should make a surprise declaration that the Rich pardon was a mistake. But then my hypothesis implies that NPR is trying to spin things.

Hey -- I'm looking for a better hypothesis if you've got one. If not, we'll wait for the Congressional confirmation hearing.

Word is, the wingnutosphere is going nuts about this Rich story. See piscivorous's initial post above and my response, for a start, and then you could probably find some more. So I'm guessing that the buzz makes it a story, along the lines of lapel pins, hands not over the heart, the word bitter, and so forth. And if by "spin things" you mean "tell the real story as opposed to

It's not as if Holder ever said the pardon was wrong.

Interesting point. Clinton made a lot of decent people look bad by dragging them into his scandals. The pardons deals were especially indefensible. Everyone rationalized Clinton's lying about sex because it was well, just sex, and the victims could be caricatured as sluts, white trash and fame whores. Besides, he had the "right wing conspiracy" breathing down his neck. But pardoning sleazebag cronies (while the "first black president" helped fill the prisons with disproportinately black petty drug dealers and users, for whom he had no pardons) was just obscene.

I've just learned that Holder has already stated that his advice on the Rich case was wrong. So the situation is simpler, and I must modify my complaint. (1) By his own admission, Holder came to the wrong decision about the Rich pardon.
(2) In a story that focused specifically on Holder and the Rich pardon, NPR chose not to report this fact in a straightforward way.

Quoting Simon Willard: I've just learned that Holder has already stated that his advice on the Rich case was wrong. So the situation is simpler, and I must modify my complaint.

(1) By his own admission, Holder came to the wrong decision about the Rich pardon.
(2) In a story that focused specifically on Holder and the Rich pardon, NPR chose not to report this fact in a straightforward way.

Noted. Not having heard the NPR story, I can't really say anything in response to #2.