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 diplom