- Upper management has always kept hope alive that profits could expand infinitely, but longstanding opposition to centralized pensions and healthcare has brought down industry after industry.

- What to expect next year from government? Even if card check becomes the law, employees can still have secret ballots once a union has been formed. Meet the new head of the Office of Management and Budget, and apparently a fan of using national health care to save American industry.

- Sustainability is the key to the next economy.

- More gay people need the beatdown to earn equal rights, says Huckabee.

- Conservatives objectively pro-death.

- Saturday editorial cartoons and a profile in shame of six Senate Republicans who hate the jobless.

- The new justification for racism isn't inherent inferiority, but that some people's cultures are scary. Though the culture that worries me is the one that's strained international law to the point that piracy is back in a big way.

I got some interesting feedback from Obama supporters in the primary, earlier this year, over why they were supporting Obama over Clinton. My opinion, blogged much throughout the year, was that they were basically the same, as far as policy goes, and my only reason for choosing Clinton was because I was pretty sure she'd win, and Obama, not so much. Of course, when the markets melted down in September, and 90% of Americans said the nation was heading in the wrong direction by October, there was really very little that Obama could have done to lose the election, or for McCain to win the election.

Now, throughout the year, I was told that I didn't understand how Obama was different-- that he was really progressive and would change our foreign policy radically... and so on. It amazed me that, despite every indication from how Obama had voted and said about Iraq, Afghanistan and the mid-east, anti-war progressives believed differently. Well, reality is emerging:

My expecations of Obama are pretty much just what he is delivering. If Clinton had been the nominee, she would have chosen Obama as her VP, and we'd probably be seeing Biden as the SoS choice. Despite campaign projection from a lot of progressives that Obama was different in regards to foreign policy, these are centrist Democrats on such matters that are going to be in the White House. Anyone that didn't realize that was deceiving themselves:Well, Obama's foreign policy team is pretty status quo driven at the top, and it's tough to imagine that these progressives will be brought in at the mid-level, but if it happens it'd be good for the long-term. It'll be up to Senator John Kerry probably, as the Foreign Affairs chairman in the Senate, to push for deep governing changes.

All that said, I think the strongest progressive hope for Obama remains with more domestic concerns: universal healthcare, new energy priorities, fairer taxation, liberal judges. That's reason enough for Obama as President. But as far as foreign policy goes in the mid-east, expect more of the same in the short term, with the long term change still a possibility.

Update [2008-11-22 23:35:33 by Jerome Armstrong]: More of those hated Clintonites getting appointments:

"I think the new administration is off to a good start," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told reporters on Capitol Hill. He's just glad to be getting Bush's numbers off his back.

Update [2008-11-23 0:51:13 by Jerome Armstrong]: Jane Hamsher has more thoughts on this, and her answer to it is spot on:

Another wildcard to consider in the MN Senate recount-- rejected absentee ballots:

So maybe 10,000 more? The Canvassing Board has to determine whether to review those ballots as well. I don't see how they can refuse.

Today's tally resulted in Coleman gaining 60 votes, while just 4% was added, going from 64% to 68% counted. At the same time, Coleman challenged 55 more votes today than Franken did, so that gain of 60 by Coleman is not surprising.

The total number of challenged ballots now stands at 1,982, but with the additional rejected absentee ballots included the topic:

If the Canvassing Board were to decide not to review the absentee ballots, it'd probably call into question the legitimacy of the recount process.

Bumped - Todd

In a new ad released today, Jim Martin responds to Saxby Chambliss' false, personal attacks on Martin's record protecting children.  The truth is that Jim Martin has always fought to protect children and families, because he knows what it's like to have a child come face-to-face with violent crime.  

"Becky"

Martin's daughter Becky was kidnapped when she was eight years old.  Fortunately she was let go, but Martin never forgot the way Becky trembled when she came face-to-face with her kidnapper in court. Over his 18-year tenure in the state legislature and during his service as Commissioner of Georgia's Department of Human Resources, Martin built a reputation as a leading advocate for children.

Kurt Weinsheimer of Spot Runner, Becki Donatelli and Rob Kubasko from the McCain campaign and Sam Graham-Felsen and Joe Rospars of the Obama campaign are speaking about the web and politics with Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin.

You should be able to watch the live stream of the panel HERE.

Rospars: Obama, Axelrod and Plouffe all got the importance of technology and mobilizing the grassroots. From day one, it was important that we had the website up on the day he announced his candidacy in Springfield. We put the website together in 10 days. [...]

Obama and Michelle kept saying "If we're going to be successful, it's going to have to be organic, bottom-up."

The beginning of the liveblog is below the fold...

--------------------------------

Rob Kubasko just said that early voting has rendered the old school "72 hours GOTV" machine that the Republican Party is known for completely obsolete. "This election was lost 3 weeks before election day. Now you need to put out your final argument a month out." True.

Rospars: The greatest use of Facebook we exploited were the applications. You can do all sorts of things. When people shared video or other content, when they clicked on an application, we could show them their friends in Iowa or their friends who could early vote starting today, and ask them to contact them.

Becki has been working in online politics since McCain's 2000 campaign, which Joe Trippi has said inspired him in 04.

Donatelli: In 2004, there were 2 lessons learned: Dean's meet-ups and Bush campaign's use of online tools to microtarget for the last 72 hour turnout machine. Our campaign probably took the wrong lesson from that. We spent way too much time speaking to the media. We should have used our technology to speak to supporters.

Ben: You've said you didn't invent technology so much as you perfected what was already out there. So what's next?

Rospars: We tried a lot of things. We were conservative about what we were willing to try. We had more than a million people registered for the first time online. There's a lot more to be done with that. Same with the online voter contact tools, to get people to knock on doors or make calls from home in a more systematic and efficient way. For example, 15% of all people who participated in the Iowa caucus looked up their caucus location on our website. Leading up the the general, when people looked up their precinct location, we also showed them contact info for 5 people who were in their same precinct to contact. If they're looking up where to vote, we're fairly sure they're going to vote. We needed to get them to take the next step.

Donatelli: I would like to see us do more 1 on 1 video, from the candidate directly to the people, as Sarkozy did.

Martin asked how you're going to reach the casual voter when TV is going to become more and more diminished as an influential medium.

Sam: Diverse video, which is what we tried to do.

Kubasko: Using mobile technology.

Feedback in the inbox:  

I want to thank the MyDD community.  Before election day, I learned more about my local races and candidates reading the diaries here than watching my local news.  Thank you MyDD!  - Carol in CA

'Nuf said.  Enjoy.

• It's about the very survival of working families says The Electrical Worker in IBEW: Election 2008 Recap.
• The national gadfly is fighting feudal economics and culture in We Are All Pakistani Women Now!
• Canadian gal peers into Michael Savages soul in The Wingnut Strikes Back.
• AJC Endorses Jim Martin as a "Fighter for the Little Guy." (andrewalker08)
• Challenging Ballots is Fun writes the mollusk, offering a brief shot of humor from Franken's knuckle-biting recount in MN.
• Timothy Gatto recommends embracing your better self in America, Islam and Prejudice.
• After 2008 Election, Some States Want to Make Voting Easier; Others Determined to Make it Harder. (Project Vote)
• An Ohio Community Needs Your Help to Ensure Green Future, and nonpartisan has the details on what you can do.
• 2hands0feet supplies avenues for GA-Sen Action: Beating Back Saxby.  Donate what time you can.

What else is on your mind?

Yesterday I attended a conference co-sponsored by Politico that featured panels chock full of advisors and consultants from both campaigns as well as several journalists to sort of deconstruct the election. One of the more interesting topics that came up time and again was whether Joe Lieberman would have been a better choice for McCain's VP -- better meaning more likely to have helped McCain win than Sarah Palin did.

The most interesting thing about the debate over this question was the difference in opinion that existed between the Obama camp and the McCain camp. In general, both sides agreed on what the turning points of the election were and what factors led to Obama's victory. But on this point, the McCain folks were intractable: Sarah Palin was the best choice for them at the time.

Was this simple spin -- the refusal to concede what is in retrospect conventional wisdom, that Palin was a disaster for McCain, or was it a sincere analysis of the strategy at the time? I think a little bit of both.

Here's pretty much how the argument went:

Steve Hildebrand, Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager: If McCain had chosen Lieberman or another Democrat, it would have taken away Barack's "post partisan" thing and would have reinforced McCain's maverick thing.

Adam Mendolsohn, GOP consultant: In mid to late August the race was so close, they needed to pick someone who would not collapse the Republican base.

Hildebrand: In the general election you need to forget about your base, they'll be with you, you need to go after moderates and independents.

Mendolsohn: I don't think it's as easy to say the base would have been there. There was a lot of discussion with folks who understand the base and how the convention works and what a Lieberman pick would mean and they were very concerned. They were saying "this will be a huge disaster." In 1992,a large part of the base stayed home. Sarah Palin was a strong solid logical pick for the base.

Mike DuHaime, McCain Political Director: Our hope with Governor Palin going forward was that there would be a connection to moderate women and independents and there was after the convention. She did appeal to working women as well as the base. Ultimately that did not carry all the way through election day but it was not initially just a base pick.

The McCain side insisted that no one else would have given them the bump they received out of the convention and the fundraising spike, without which they would not have been competitive. This financial advantage that Obama had was particularly problematic for them in the immediate aftermath of the Palin announcement when it became evident that "Obama could do 5 things at once, we could do 1" and they allowed Obama to portray Palin as an extreme right winger.

The McCain team were clearly going out of their way to defend the choice and not throw Palin or McCain under the bus and that's fine. I actually think their reasoning versus a Lieberman pick is sound. Lieberman would have been a disaster for them for different reasons. But what they laughably failed to acknowledge on that stage yesterday was just how devastating the pick itself was to McCain's viability. Once it became evident just how unprepared Palin was for top office, as Mike Allen said during a later panel yesterday, the Palin choice helped make John McCain the risky one, which gets to the heart of why McCain lost on Nov. 4th. As Obama pollster David Binder put it, ultimately:

The risk of the unknown with Obama was less than the risk of the known with McCain.

Todd blogged on this below with his thoughts, but I want to add some as well. It seems clear that Coleman is intent on having this go to the 5-person board with his having a lead. Right now, with 64% of the recount done, Coleman leads by 120 votes. The trend would indicate that Coleman winds up with a lead of less than 100 votes.

Again, I do not read that much into the challenge numbers themselves, as we don't have an overall indication as to which way the challenges are made: some are made by Coleman or Franken to challenge a vote to count and some are made by Coleman or Franken to challenge a vote to not count.  ie, they are not all challenging of the others, some are challenges against the way the votes are counted in the recount. This becomes obvious while watching the video in Todd's post on which type of ballots the Coleman campaign is challenging-- some they don't want counted for Franken and some they want counted for Coleman.

But its very clear that some frivolous challenging is going on by Coleman in order for him to maintain his lead. In Ramsey County a few days ago, there's this:

Murray replied, "If you want to deal with them, you can take my determination to court."

Then from yesterday, in today's Star Tribune, Coleman is retracting his earlier statement that he would not challenge the results of the canvassing board.

Another 10 percent is expected to be counted by tonight, and the SoS Ritchie is saying the recount could be done prior to thanksgiving, making way for all of the challenges to go to the canvassing board. There are cases where the machine count does not match up with the hand count, in total ballots.

Now, I've been paying close attention to Ramsey County. After Thursdays count, commenting:

However, Fridays results for Ramsey county showed there now being 47% counted, with Franken losing 10 and Coleman losing 45, for a net of 35 for Franken. That would appear to be a reversal of the trend, and the number of challenges show a new trend. Coleman went from having 2 challenges to having 62, and Franken went from having 8 challenges to having 53, all when only another 16 percent of the ballots were counted. Here's why:

So now, I expect that though Franken will likely whittle down the Coleman lead to less than 100 with the remaining 26% of the recount, we are going to see the 1,669 challenges to dramatically increase.

Mark Ritchie had predicted 1,500 challenged ballots, and Nate Silver had estimated roughly 1,800, both of which now seem too conservative. Chris Steller, 2500? Higher:

A division of less than 100 votes, with thousands of challenged votes remaining, is where we are headed, to the canvassing board.