I know, I know, it's dizzying, the “transition team” news swirling about now. Someone's going to be taking a position in the Obama team, then they're not, then they are again, there's a lot of Clinton-era hacks returning to the fold (what a change!), etc. There's also some good news in there, such as that Obama might actually pick a real environmentalist to run the EPA. Can't complain about that one.

Now, there's a lot of rumors, and I suspect some are based in fact, some are perhaps “testing the waters” and some are complete b.s. Matt Stoller at Open Left has been keeping his eye on one of the rumours, that of Larry Summers as Treasury Secretary. Not good.

Stoller:

Summers was one of the key proponents of the banking deregulation of 1999 that led to the current financial crisis.  In addition, Larry Summers has argued that women are innately less gifted in science than men, that 'Africa is Underpolluted', that child sweatshop work in Asia is sometimes justified, and that job destroying trade agreements are good for America.

People get stuff wrong all the time.  That's not bad.  But if you got the big stuff wrong, repeatedly, while being warned against it, you shouldn't be rewarded with a promotion.

And then there's this:

More important is Summers' close relationship with (some would say protection of) Andrei Schleifer. Schleifer is another brilliant economist who seemed to think that his brilliance allowed him trade tens of millions of dollars of Russian stocks while directing the pace and direction of Russian privatization. The US government sued Schleifer and Harvard University (where Schleifer holds a professorship and which held the USAID contract under which Schleifer worked) for fraud. Harvard settled the lawsuit and paid several million dollars to the government.

And who was President of Harvard when the university decided to settle the lawsuit? Larry Summers. It is not unreasonable speculation that Harvard settled the lawsuit the way it did in order to protect the friend of the President. It's also not unreasonable to suggest that this, not anything about public statements, was the cause of Summers' downfall from the Harvard Presidency.

And Matt just put up a recently-obtained very friendly letter from Summers to Enron's Ken Lay, too.

Now, Matt started a petition drive to the Obama transition team here in regards to saying no to Summers. I never have figured out if those things make a difference but what the hell, it can't hurt. We know Obama can talk the talk. But as James Brown's late guitarist, Bobby Byrd once sang, “Sayin' and doin' it are two different things.” He needs to walk the walk on this 'change' stuff. Some of us are actually paying attention to something besides the rhetoric.

Now, I know these things are rumours, there may be nothing to it at all. But it may also be a trial balloon, and if it is, it's important to hold the Obama team's feet to the flames and pop that balloon. Crushing the right wing was only the beginning of the hard work. There's still the corporate wing of the Democratic party to be reckoned with, and that's a bit more difficult.

There's a silly poll for you below the jump.

 Loading ...

Just a quick blurb to let you all know that Odum and Prog representative David Zuckerman will be on Vermont Edition on VPR today at noon today (Thursday) to discuss the Prog/Dem conundrum that we’ve been discussing on here of late and has been made even more obvious after this election. Tune in.

UPDATE: The podcast is up at vpr.net.

I know many of us are feeling pretty good right now, here's a bit of funny for you from the Borowitz Report:

Just minutes after their party's longstanding losing tradition lay in tatters on the ground, millions of shell-shocked Democrats stared at their television screens in disbelief, asking themselves what went right.
For Democrats, who have become accustomed to their party blowing an election even when it seemed like a sure thing, Tuesday night's results were a bitter pill to swallow.

The head-shaking and finger-pointing over the demise of the Democrats' losing streak, which many of the party faithful had worn like a badge of honor, reached all the way to the upper echelons of the Democratic National Committee.

"Believe me, I'm as shocked by these results as anybody," said DNC chief Howard Dean, who indicated he has received hundreds of calls from incredulous party members.  "We did everything in our power to screw this thing up."

Dean pointed to several key elements the Democrats put in place to ensure defeat, ranging from "a rancorous primary campaign" to "the appointment of me."

"Somehow, despite our best efforts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, we won," he said.  "I came in here with a mandate to blow this thing and I didn't get it done."

“The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson in W. Virginia State Board of Education v.

Barnette (1943)

More specifically, what metrics will you use to judge Obama’s term in the Oval Office a success or other?

We still don’t know the full makeup of the US Senate for 2008, but it’s never too early to start looking at what we can expect for 2010.  

As with 2008, there are more Republicans up for election than Democrats, though the ratio isn’t quite as stark.  There are 19 Republicans up for re-election and 15 Democrats.  There are some clear safe seats on both sides, but there are also some serious vulnerabilities that we can exploit in 2010.  

This post is intended to be a primer for those races and what our best avenues are for increasing Democratic majorities to a filibuster-proof margin.  

Republican likely safe seats:

Johnny Isakson  (R-GA)

He did extremely well last time around and has no lingering scandals

Mike Crapo  (R-ID)

No one even bothered running against him last time around

Sam Brownback  (R-KS)

Brownback will probably be retiring in 2010, but even in this election, Kansas went 57% for McCain.  It’s likely to remain in Republican hands

Richard Shelby  (R-AL)

Very well loved in a very red state (it went 61% for McCain this time around).  Even if he retires (he’s in his mid 70’s), it’s likely to go to a Republican.

Tom Coburn  (R-OK)

Homophobic anti-spending crusader Coburn won by a decent margin last tine around, in a state Obama just lost by double-digits.  I don’t think he’s going to face much of a challenge.

Robert Bennett  (R-UT)

Won with 69% of the vote last time around.  I’m not going to spend much time thinking about this one

Jim DeMint  (R-SC)

Solid Republican in a solid red state.  Might be vulnerable, but probably not

Democrat likely safe seats:

Chris Dodd  (D-CT)

If Dodd chooses to remain in the Senate, he’s likely to keep his seat.  Currently, there’s little taste for Republicans in the Northeast.

Patrick Leahy  (D-VT)

Leahy will get reelected to his Senate seat in Vermont as long as he wants it.

Blanche Lincoln  (D-AR)

Has won handily in both her Senate elections.

Barbara Boxer  (D-CA)

Boxer is likely to keep her Senate seat for as long as she wants it

Daniel Inouye  (D-HI)

Inouye is in his mid-80’s, so it’s hard to say if he’ll keep running for Senate, but HI is a fairly blue state.  Even if he’s not running in two years, the seat will probably stay in the “D” column

Byron Dorgan  (D-ND)

Has won by extremely large margins every time he’s run for Senate.  No opponent of his has reached 40%.

Barack Obama, (D-IL)

He’s clearly not going to be keeping his Senate seat, but any Democrat appointed in his place will probably keep the seat.

Evan Bayh  (D-IN), Barbara Mikulski  (D-MD), Harry Reid  (D-NV), Chuck Schumer  (D-NY), Ron Wyden  (D-OR), Patty Murray  (D-WA) & Russ Feingold  (D-WI) all did very well in 2004.  They’re likely to retain their seats if they run again.  

Pick-up opportunities for Democrats:

John McCain  (R-AZ)

McCain’s senate seat, if he chooses to run for Senate again, is in jeopardy.  Recent polls indicate that people would prefer Janet Napolitano to McCain.  He may, however, choose not to run for public office again.  Furthermore, he will be in his mid-70s by the time that election is underway and it may just be more than he wants to deal with.  A strong Democrat has a really great chance to take this seat.

Lisa Murkowski  (R-AK)

She won by a very small margin in 2004, and has been part of a land deal scandal since that election.  Then again, Alaskans seem to like that sort of thing, so it’s a tough call.

Mel Martinez  (R-FL)

Martinez won in 2004 by slim margins, during a presidential election in which Florida went for Bush.  Without Bush’s coattails, and after the state having just gone Blue, he may not survive 2010.

George Voinovich  (R-OH)

Voinovich is a Republican in his mid-70’s who would be facing reelection in a state which is trending solidly blue.  He may not have the fight in him, and even if he does, he might not be up for the challenge.

Jim Bunning  (R-KY)

Bunning is in his late 70’s and just barely won in 2004.  During a debate in 2004 he was extremely incoherent to the point where even his friends were concerned for his health.  I’ll be surprised if he runs again, but KY is a very red state which ran 58% for McCain.  It’s an uphill battle

David Vitter  (R-LA)

Diaper boy.  I’ll say no more.

Chuck Grassley  (R-IA)

Grassley is in his 70’s and though he’s well liked in Iowa, may just not be up for running again.  There’s a decent chance at replacing him with a Democrat

Kit Bond  (R-MO)

Kit Bond did well in 2004, but Missouri is a swing state and he may be vulnerable if he has a strong challenger

Judd Gregg  (R-NH)

Gregg slaughtered his opponent in 2004, but she was a grassroots candidate with no strong support from the party.  NH has been trending strongly blue and no Republican has won a congressional House or Senate seat in NH since 2006.  I think we’re going to take him down and I think it will be fun.

Richard Burr  (R-NC)

Had a close race in 2004 in a state that just went for Obama.  We’ve got a decent shot at him

Arlen Specter  (R-PA)

Specter is a cancer survivor who will be 80 years old if he chooses to run in 2010.  I don’t think he’s going to run again, which leaves the seat wide open.  Word is that Chris Matthews is considering running for that seat, which should be surreal.

John Thune  (R-SD)

Very close (and ugly) race in 2004.  Might be vulnerable in 2010.

Pick up opportunities for Republicans:

Ken Salazar  (D-CO)

Salazar won by a slim 4-point margin in 2004, but Colorado seems to be trending blue.  While it’s a possible pick-up for Republicans, it’s not a likely one

Obviously, anything can happen between now and 2010 and there’s probably stuff happening at local levels that I haven’t found out about yet, but I think this presents some real opportunities for us to improve on current gains and achieve the supermajority we didn’t quite get this time around.

1. Fill in the blank. The countries in NAFTA are: _______________________.

2. Africa is a:

(a) continent

(b) country.

 Loading ...

Now that we know who won, we also know that our Democratic electors will be the ones to cast Vermont's three electoral votes for Barack Obama.

To recap, our three electors are:

Euan Bear (Windsor Franklin County Chair)

Sen. Claire Ayer (Addison County)

and Kevin Christie (Windsor County–also an Obama delegate to Denver).

They'll be meeting in Montpelier on December 15. It's purely ceremonial, but in a historic year like this, a little ceremony is certainly in order.

Cross posted at Rational Resistance:

 There is lots of great feeling today, and with good reason. I do think it's worthwhile, though, to keep in mind what the Obama haters are saying. It tells us what we'll be up against in the coming four or eight years. I assume there are any number of places to find this information, but I'm going back to the old reliable Facebook group, Anti-Obama and Damn Proud of it.

One particular point comes from the morning of Election Day, from the status line of a member's page:

[User] is disgusted and not optimistic about todays outcome.

Now think about this for a minute, and consider what it means. “Unhappy”? Okay. “Worried”? Why not? But “disgusted”? What would give rise to a feeling of disgust or revulsion? It seems pretty obvious to me that a policy disagreement can't make you disgusted. A visceral reaction like disgust comes from something else, and if it's not disagreement with Obama's political positions, what is left? That's right, the reaction that someone “disgusting” like him has no business getting elected president. This really seems like a pretty blatant expression of racism.

But that's just one person. Let's see what some of the rest of them are saying:

I doubt he will make it through his first term, let alone a second term. I'm hoping for an early Christmas present this year, if anyone knows what I'm thinking.

🙁
our country is fucked in the ass, we arent gonna have any rights left, im not racist but osama obama is gonna fuck this county up, we're gonna be as important as canada soon

There are more bright spots than dark ones. Still, the fact that these people are willing to talk about the assassination of our newly elected president, or seceding, demonstrates that we have a long road ahead of us.

My America kicked your “Real Amerikkka’s” ass!