The air-tight campaign of Barack Obama has turned into the leak-a-minute transition of president-Elect Obama. Floating names is obviously important but, if things don’t work out, it can make Obama’s team look sloppy. Is that what’s about to happen with the whole Hillary Clinton at State scenario? Apparently, she may not be interested.

Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t certain she would accept the Secretary of State post even if Barack Obama offers it to her, several people close to the former first lady say.

Press reports that portray Clinton as willing to accept the job – once the Obama transition team vets Bill Clinton’s philanthropic and business ventures – are inaccurate, one Clinton insider told Politico.

“A lot of the speculation and reporting is out ahead of the facts here,” said the person, who requested anonymity. “She is still weighing this, independent of President Clinton’s work.”

Politically, I can see why Clinton would turn down the invitation to join Obama’s cabinet. Despite all her talk during the campaign of being ready on day one, she’s not exactly a foreign policy maven. Her passion is domestic issues and she’d likely be of greater service from her position in the Senate. Plus, Secretary of State is a thankless job, particularly in the current mess that is international affairs. Does she want to risk damaging her image if things don’t go well on the world stage the next four years?

Whatever the outcome, I think it’s clear by this leak that Clinton wants to make this appear to be her decision, not something Obama lured her in to and not something her husband can facilitate or complicate by his oversized presence. Clinton’s not going to do anything at this point that’s not good for Clinton. If she ends up in Obama’s cabinet, you better believe it will appear to be as a favor to Obama (and duty to country). I don’t see it happening any other way.

It looks like Barack Obama may be ready to name his first Cabinet pick:

Eric H. Holder Jr., a former second in command at the Justice Department who served as President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign co-chairman, is almost certain to be selected for U.S. Attorney General, according to knowledgeable Democratic sources.

Holder, 57, has a rich background within the criminal justice system as a former judge and top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. He is widely known within the city’s legal community and for his philanthropic work on behalf of troubled juveniles detained at Washington’s Oak Hill facility. If he is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Holder would be the first African American Attorney General.

For the last several years, Holder has defended private corporations as a partner at the law firm Covington and Burling. But he took on an active role in the Obama campaign as a friend and adviser to the senator from Illinois after meeting him at a Washington dinner party.

Holder has won praise from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, though his selection is likely to revive questions about his failure to act forcefully to prevent a last minute pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, who won clemency from President Bill Clinton during his last days in office in early 2001.

(…)

Holder has yet to complete an energetic vetting process by the Obama-Biden transition team and his position as attorney general would have to be be confirmed by the Senate. A formal announcement of the choice may not come for a few days, a source familiar with the choice said.

Holder would be an interesting pick, although it would again leave Obama open to criticism that he is relying far too much on former Clinton Administration officials to fill out his Cabinet.

More delicious crazy…

A Wichita, Kansas preacher says he will not remove a message on his church sign that says President-Elect Barack Obama is a Muslim.

The sign is staying up despite the fact that Obama is a Christian.

At least it’s not in Missouri, but it’s close enough to be embarrassing.

If you don’t know why this is good news, imagine paying for the internet as if it were cable. Sounds ridiculous right? Paying for specific websites within the internet?

Well, that’s been pushed by folks inside and outside of the FCC and now it seems like those who want to keep the internet free and open are set to take over.

From Wired:

The Obama-Biden transition team on Friday named two long-time net neutrality advocates to head up its Federal Communications Commission Review team.

Susan Crawford, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, and Kevin Werbach, a former FCC staffer, organizer of the annual tech conference Supernova, and a Wharton professor, will lead the Obama-Biden transition team’s review of the FCC.

Why should you love these people? Well, listen to what Crawford had to say this year…

This March at a telecom policy conference in Hollywood, for example, Crawford bluntly told Ambassador Richard Russell, the White House’ associate director on science and technology policy, that he lived in a fantasyland when he asserted that the United States’ roll-out of broadband is going well.

“I think it’s magical thinking to imagine that we’re somehow doing fine here, and I just want to make sure that we recognize that even the [International Telecommunications Union] says that between 1999 and 2006 we skipped form third to 20th place in penetration,” she noted acidly at the annual Tech Policy Summit, a gathering of top officials in the world of tech policy (of which Wired.com was a participant and sponsor.)

“We’re not doing at all well for reasons that mostly have to do with the fact that we failed to have a US industrial policy pushing forward high-speed internet access penetration, and there’s been completely inadequate competition in this country for high speed internet access,” she said.

And in a final introductory statement during her talk (that’s likely to send shivers down the spines of telecom company executives) she said that she believes internet access is a “utility.”

“This is like water, electricity, sewage systems: Something that each and all Americans need to succeed in the modern era. We’re doing very badly, and we’re in a dismal state,” she said at the time.

Basically, they’re realists and they get the fact that every other country in the world is treating the internet as if it’s a utility and if we don’t do the same, we’re screwed.

More as it develops…

By a fairly decisive margin, the Senate Democrats have decided to make nice with Joe Lieberman:

WASHINGTON — Sen. Joe Lieberman will keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee despite hard feelings over his support for GOP nominee John McCain during the presidential campaign.

The Connecticut independent will lose a minor panel post as punishment for criticizing Obama this fall.

Lieberman’s colleagues in the Democratic caucus voted 42-13 Tuesday on a resolution condemning statements made by Lieberman during the campaign but allowing him to keep the Homeland Security Committee gavel but lose a subcommittee chair on the Environment and Public Works panel.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was very angry by Lieberman’s actions but that “we’re looking forward, we’re not looking back.”

When this comes out, I’m betting we’ll find that Lieberman’s hide was saved largely thanks to the direct intervention of Barack Obama, which is somewhat ironic considering that Lieberman spent the better part of a year campaigning for the guy that Obama just beat in the election.

MSNBC’s First Read speculates that there may be a nepotism play going on with Joe Biden’s Delaware Senate seat:

With President-elect Obama having resigned his Senate seat yesterday, folks may be wondering about what Vice President-elect Biden might do.

Biden told a local TV station right before Election Day he didn’t want to resign his seat right away, leading to speculation about whether he is trying to deny the outgoing governor of Delaware — Democrat Ruth Ann Minner — the chance to appoint his successor.

Under that scenario, Biden would wait until moments before he is sworn in as vice president to resign his seat, which could enable the new governor, Jack Markell, to make the appointment.

Biden has been said for some time to be grooming his son Beau Biden to succeed him in the Senate. Beau is currently Delaware’s Attorney General. He is on leave while he serves on active duty in the Delaware National Guard, where he is a captain.

Beau Biden is scheduled to be deployed to Iraq for about a year, making it unlikely he’d be appointed now to his father’s seat. But he would be well positioned to run in 2010, when a special election will be held to fill the remaining four years of his father’s term.

The current thinking then is that a placeholder would be appointed to fill the seat for two years until the younger Biden could run. The consensus choice of Delaware Democratic officials is the outgoing Lt. Gov. Jack Carney, who lost his own bid governor to Markell in a bitter primary.

Now there’s nothing new about family members being appointed to succeed each other in Congress. Jean Carnhan was appointed to her husband’s term after he died in a plane crash. Mary Bono replaced Sonny Bono in Congress. Hubert Humphrey’s widow filled out the remainder of his Senate term when he died. Up in Alaska, Lisa Murkowski was appointed to fill her father’s vacated Senate seat by her father. And, there have already been reports that ailing Senator Ted Kennedy has maneuvered to ensure that his wife Victoria his appointed to his seat should he die before his term ends.

Just because it’s a tradition, though, doesn’t make it right. What makes Beau Biden qualified to be a United States Senator ? Other than serving as Delaware’s Attorney General since 2006, he has no political experience (and one wonders how he can serve as Attorney General while he’s deployed in Iraq). If he weren’t related to Joe Biden, he wouldn’t even seriously be considered for the job. You can say pretty much the same thing about Jean Carnahan, Mary Bono, and Vicki Kennedy.

Ideally, nepotism of this type should be prohibited, but then, as James Joyner notes, so should the whole questionable practice of allowing Governors to appoint political cronies to a Senate seats and given them a leg up on the inevitible special election.

Of course, if we were living in an ideal world we’d be talking seriously about repealing the 17th Amendment and returning the Senate to the function it was intended to service, but that’s not likely to happen.

Some of you may have seen the video of Peter Schiff clips posted by Justin a few days ago. It is getting a lot of play around the blogosphere. If you have not seen it, take a look, it is well worth a few minutes of your time. Like Cassandra, Schiff exhibits the gift of economic prophecy. Also like Cassandra, his prophecies were dismissed and ignored.

Watching it, you might have had a reaction like mine: “Gosh, It is too bad that no one was paying attention to him.” And upon further reflection while reviewing my IRA brokerage statement: “Why didn’t I pay attention to him.” Well, here is the good news - he is still making predictions, and we have another chance to listen to him now. From his most recent commentary:

“With the Big Three auto makers now in a plainly visible death spiral, the automotive bailout debate is kicking into overdrive. The disagreement hinges on whether a bailout is necessary to support an important industry or whether the unprofitable dinosaurs of the past should be allowed to fail as America focuses on an information-age, service sector, and alternative energy future. As usual, both sides have it wrong. The government should let the Big Three fail not because we no longer need an auto industry, but because we desperately do. What we do not need is the bloated, inefficient auto industry that we have today. By allowing the Big Three to fail, their capacity will be turned over to new owners who will be able to acquire the means of production at fire sale prices and hire workers at globally competitive wages. The result will be a more efficient auto industry making cars that people around the world actually want to buy at prices they can afford. Such auto makers could conceivably be profitable and could become the cornerstone of a manufacturing renaissance in the United States. In contrast, Ford, Chrysler and GM are never ending money pits that threaten to swallow a good deal of our economy.“

Now, there are plenty of politicians, pundits and blogger predicting dire consequences for the economy if GM is forced to take the normal course for troubled companies and reorganize under Chapter 11 protection. For at least some of them, this is much more about protection for and payback to the UAW than it is about GM or the automobile industry. Verily, I say unto you -

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.” - Matthew 7-15

^{Excerpted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“}

The following video shows you something you may not have seen before…pages upon pages of tax foreclosure listings published in the Detroit Free Press.

To be specific…137 pages of tax foreclosure listings.

Basically, these are people who are delinquent on paying their taxes and could have their homes foreclosed on in 2009 if they don’t pay them.

Now imagine the Big 3 go into bankruptcy.

You can’t tell me that ALL of these people bought homes they couldn’t afford.

Moving on…

The Physicians Foundation has released a report chronicling the growing frustrations of primary care physicians in America. The report indicates that as many as half of the nation’s primary care Family Medicine and Internal Medicine doctors may consider quitting in the next three years.

Why? The answer is pretty simple: too much bureaucracy.

There is already a shortage of primary care physicians in the U.S. and the problem is likely to increase:

[M]ed school students are shying away from family medicine. In a survey published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in September, only 2 percent of current medical students plan to take up primary care. That’s because these students are wary of the same complaints that are causing existing doctors to flee primary care: hectic clinics, burdensome paperwork and systems that do a poor job of managing patients with chronic illness.

The costs of running a practice are high and insurance payments for many routine procedures continue to decrease, thanks in a large part to the decreasing payouts from Medicare and Medicaid whose payment structure private insurance companies often emulate. In fact, Medicare and Medicaid are becoming such money losers for physicians that:

[O]ver a third of those surveyed have closed their practices to Medicaid patients and 12 percent have closed their practices to Medicare patients.

Here’s the part where I talk about national health care plans (you knew this was coming). One of the biggest challenges in designing a national insurance plan is figuring out how to spread limited resources over a larger population without significantly raising costs OR pushing providers to quit or move to a private pay system where they treat only those willing to pay cash (i.e.: the wealthy).

If we’re already short on primary care doctors and a third of those are already declining Medicaid, how on earth will we get enough providers to participate in the new system without significantly raising payouts to entice and retain primary care doctors? And if we raise payouts, that increases the overall costs associated with the healthcare system.

Or we could just cross our fingers and hope it all works out. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely given that the current healthcare market, in its heavily regulated non-free-market form, is already failing to create the incentives necessary for a strong base of primary care providers. Would placing more regulations and more layers of bureaucracy really improve the situation?

If President-elect Barack Obama wants to provide universal or near-universal healthcare, he and Congress must consider the effect their plan will have on providers. Generally, physicians are just as jerked around by the insurance system as are their patients. Their concerns should also be just as relevant. Any national healthcare system has to find a way to make primary care a reasonable and profitable option for physicians, or we’ll have a massive shortfall of providers. And that won’t benefit anyone.

Let’s face it: people don’t like the American auto industry.

Scratch that: people hate the American auto industry.

There are a lot of reasons to hate it: unionized workers who make crazy money that is out of sync with reality, execs who seem to have a tin ear to what Americans really want, cars that aren’t made well, and a lack of fuel-efficient alternatives.

Americans have every reason to be upset at an industry that hasn’t performed well. Heck, I am upset at this industry, and my parents are GM-retirees who are proud union workers.

A few months ago, I even said that the Big Three should die. If they can’t make it on the free market, then they should die.

And then Lehman Brothers happened.

Remember them? Back in mid-September, the Feds decided not to bailout the investment bank. Many thought this was a good thing: after all, we are a capitalist society and if private businesses make bad decisions, then they should fail.

Well, we know what happened: the financial markets went wild and the Feds had to step in after all to keep the financial system from failing with the $700 billion bailout.

Now, I understand when people say that it sets a bad precedent that we should be bailing out companies like Ford and General Motors who basically got themselves into this mess.

As a Republican, I have a hard time lending GM a hand.

As an environmentalist, I consider it poetic justice that the domestic auto industry is on the ropes after producing vehicles that were gas-guzzlers and polluted the environment.

But as the son of two autoworkers, all I can think about is what could happen if we allow the Big Three to go hang. Jeffery Sachs notes that the closure of the automakers could be catastophic:

the sudden closure of an automaker would be catastrophic, possibly pushing our economy from recession to depression. Because of the impact on parts suppliers, the shutdown of one company would imperil domestic production across the board, and the jobs at risk include not only the 1 million in vehicle assembly and parts but millions more that would be caught in the resulting cascade of failures. The industrial Midwest — especially Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Tennessee — would be devastated, and the shock waves would reverberate across the world.

For a long time, I’ve tried to ignore that this was personal for me. But the fact is this IS personal for me. I grew up in Michigan during the 70s and 80s. I grew up during economic downturns and have seen the result. Yes, Michigan and other states should have diversified. Yes, the United Auto Workers were greedy. Yes, the Big Three made sure that CAFE standards were never raised. But I also know of my parents and several cousins and uncles who put in long hours to make cars and put bread on the table. My parents helped put their son through college and for that, I am thankful. There are many people like my Mom and Dad, who have put in long hours who are in danger of losing their livlihoods and who wonder how long will their jobs be around.

It’s easy to make remarks about how we shouldn’t help the Big Three and a lot of them make perfect sense. But I also think that many of those making these assumptions forget that there are real people who will be affected by whatever happens. We forget that states like Michigan and Indiana and Ohio will be pushed to the limit in trying to help these displaced workers. Social services would become strained. Local economies might crumble.

I’m not saying that we should give the automakers blank checks to keep making a mess of themselves. Fire the executives. Renegiotiate the union contracts. Tell them they have to accept higher CAFE standards if they want money.

But I think in the end, we can’t simply allow a portion of the nation to go to hell because we think it feels good. The price for that bit of schadenfreude is far too great.

Jihadists appear unsure how to handle the election of Barack Obama. Their messages since Obama’s election stress their uncertainty and confusion. Some Jihadists want to ignore Obama, others praise the American people, some threaten Obama to change Bush policies and still others want to convert him to Islam.

In sum, radical Muslims are divided on whether to take a more conciliatory role or use Obama’s election as an opportunity to exploit.

In a message to Obama, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, head of an Iraqi jihadist group, stated the United States must “return to your former state of neutrality, withdraw your troops, and return to your homelands.”  Yet Al-Baghdadi also asked the members of the new administration to become Muslims. He promised to instruct them as needed.

He probably would not have asked that of John McCain.

The jihadists do not know what to expect from Obama. While giving threats, they also sound unsure. They are particularly unclear how to address Obama’s race. They do not know whether to exploit Obama’s African-American heritage or appeal to it.

The Political Council of the Iraqi Resistance warned Obama to hold to his promises of change or they will continue to fight. They told Obama that he won not because Americans were no longer racists but “because of the many mistakes the Bush administration fell under.” Yet they tell Obama that if he makes the right choices he will go down in history as “the courageous one.”

The jihadists know that Obama’s election improves America’s image in the world. This sudden improvement in the world community is what leaves the jihadists pondering if a hard line or conciliatory position serves their recruiting needs best.

Some, like the Taliban, ignore Obama’s commitment to reinvigorate American involvement in Afghanistan. That may be combination of propaganda, hopefulness and not understanding what Obama promises.

“The overwhelming victory of Barrack Obama …and his assumption of US presidency reveals the collective willingness of American people not to continue the current despicable and anti-human wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — wars that have been launched by W. Bush,” stated the Taliban in a November 11 press release.

Other jihadists, like Abu Yahya al-Libi, do not even try to appeal to Obama or American sentiment. After a 13-page religious rant, loaded with quotes from the Koran, one line mercifully sums up the purpose with a plea for God to “humiliate Bush and his party.” There is no mention of Obama or much of anything since the seventh century.

Another jihadist, Hamid al-Ali, barely mentions Obama, but takes his race and campaign slogan for change and twists it into a something ordained by God upon the American people.

“The American nation asked for change and got it, after it saw with its own eyes how a group of authoritarian leaders driven by blind discrimination, ignorance, and stupidity transformed everything they had into rubble…

“God, however, sent them a person they deeply despise and hate because of his color and his African roots and placed all of them under his command…  

“We say this while we confess to the accomplishment of the American nation in creating this change, knowing that we do not expect much from it, except ridding the world of the gang that controlled the White House and owned the most powerful military force in history that filled the world with injustice and oppression. Bush and his gang are finished.”

That is what all the jihadists agree. They despise Bush and know change is coming. They just have not figured out exactly what it means. More importantly, all are uneasy with Obama and the new image he presents of the United States to the world.

(from Foolocracy.com)

Earlier today we heard that Bill Clinton is getting vetted just to make sure that nothing embarrassing comes out if Hillary says yes, and now we hear that she’s going to accept the position…so does this mean that the vetting of Bill is over or close to it?

In any event…from the Guardian…

Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.

Obama’s advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton’s foundation, which distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem. [...]

Although the two clashed during the election campaign over tax policy and withdrawal from Iraq, they have more in common than they have differences. They both favour the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention centre, an increase in US troops to Afghanistan, immigration reform, stem cell research and measures to tackle climate change, and oppose torture and the widespread use of wire-tapping.

Actually, even though it hasn’t been historically the best way to the Presidency in recent years, we all know that Biden won’t be running in 2016, so this keeps Hillary on the world stage, keeps Bill in a cage and therefore helps Obama keep everybody in check.

A brutally smart move here at first glance, but we’ll obviously have to see how it pans out. But considering that Hillary has branded herself as “tough”, I’m sure she’ll bring that and more back to Foggy Bottom.

Democratic Party insiders now say Joe Lieberman will be allowed to remain in the Democratic Caucus and he’ll likely retain his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. His only punishment for supporting Republican John McCain and speaking at the Republican Convention will reportedly be the loss of his chairmanship of the not-exactly prestigious Environment and Public Works Committee.

The leniency is apparently thanks to President-elect Barack Obama who wants bygones to be bygones and has publically stated he would like Lieberman to remain in the caucus. At this point, what Obama wants, he’s going to get, even though there are a few Senate Democrats who would like to take a harsher line with Lieberman.

Democrats will meet tomorrow behind closed doors to determine Lieberman’s fate. But, right now, it looks like Obama really is a uniter — at least between a wayward Senator and the Democratic Caucus.

Today I had a chance to listen in on the blogger conference call with the policy group that represents the auto industry, The Auto Alliance. Thanks to Jon Henke for inviting me. I was 5 minutes late, so I missed the opening spiel, but I got a chance to listen to the Q&A session that followed.

Here are some things that came up…

• A lot of the cars the Big 3 have in their pipelines or will be announcing soon are fuel efficient or hybrids. So while many say that these companies have dropped the ball on the green front, that’s not entirely true. They just weren’t the first to market, and Toyota is enjoying a huge advantage because their business plans were more future forward looking.
• It sounded like The Auto Alliance is in favor of having gas prices set above a certain level instead of the market determining the price. Obviously this would be a big no no for free marketers, but it does make sense. After all, if you’re pushing fuel efficiency, the point is to use less gas, not more. So you don’t want to continue to have a policy that tries to get the cheapest gas possible and thus incents people to just drive, drive, drive. Still, I think many would be surprised that this is their position. Or maybe I just haven’t been paying attention.
• Car companies don’t care if the $25B comes from the TARP program or from the $25B provided in the 2007 energy bill that provided for companies to retool their existing factories to go green. The Bush administration is pushing for the latter, while I think the companies would honestly prefer the former (even though they said they don’t) because having that additional $25B would help their long term competitiveness Still, this could be the compromise some are seeking, although many free marketers simply want the companies to go into Chapter 11.
• They did not have an answer when asked how much of this money would go to cover legacy and current healthcare costs. Apparently there has been a proposal put out there that says the government could simply take over the healthcare costs, but that wasn’t discussed in any additional detail. The only answer we were given is that $1,000 of every GM car sold goes to cover healthcare costs. And given that the average car costs around $20,000, you can do the math on that one.
• They reiterated that letting these companies go into Chapter 11 would set off a domino effect since car purchases are unique in the economic landscape. In short, it’s the second biggest purchase that people ever make (with homes being the first) and the spokesperson asked Sara Barz of Grist (paraphrasing here) “Would you buy a car from a manufacturer who wouldn’t be around to support it in 6 months?” Sara answered that she might if the guarantees were absorbed by another company, but that’s obviously a chicken and an egg type of problem. Because Chapter 11 isn’t a gateway for acquisition of assets, it’s a path for reorganization. And it seems to me the only way that somebody would absorb those guarantees is if a company liquidated their assets via Chapter 7, not via a Chapter 11 reorganization.
• Last, did any of you know about a deal being kicked around to have auto loan interest be deductible? That would certainly incent more people to buy cars. This was discussed as well, but would obviously not have anything to do with the rescue money. Still, an interesting idea, although it would diminish our tax revenues at a time when we really need them.

One thing I will note is that bloggers you would traditionally consider to be liberal, like Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake and the aforementioned Sara Barz, challenged the guy from The Auto Alliance to basically “prove it.” How do we know we’re not just paying for health care costs? How do we know that this will only be a one time deal? How do we know that Chapter 11 isn’t a viable option?

But given that he was talking for all of the companies, he wasn’t able to provide specific enough numbers to do that. But Hamsher in particularly pushed him on it so much so that you could definitely tell he was becoming annoyed and defensive. Not that this annoyance was unwarranted (she was pointed), but there was definitely tension between the two.

However, she made an interesting point that the car companies’ current argument of “if the government doesn’t do something, bad things will happen” isn’t as believable anymore in a post-Iraq world. In other words, we were sold a war that we were told was necessary, but end up being anything but. And now Americans simply aren’t as likely to buy these doomsday scenarios.

Me, I didn’t ask any questions. Instead, I listened and now I’m reporting back. Hope this shed some additional light on the situation.

Busy morning for me, so not much blogging will be done.

So…here’s the entire interview from last night.

More later…

Apparently, some banking execs do have a sense of shame. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and six other top executives have renounced their 2008 bonuses, saying they do not deserve them due to the company’s poor performance.

My question is, why were these executives ever slated to receive bonuses? I mean, Goldman Sachs shares have lost 70% of their value and the company had to go begging to the U.S. government for a bailout. Maybe I used to work at the wrong companies but, back in my corporate days, a bad year meant no bonuses. For anyone.

Don’t worry about how Blankfein will get by without his yearly bonus. Last year he pulled in a $68 million bonus.

Over the past couple of weeks we have seen two extremely provocative articles regarding the social and intellectual divide that has gripped America in recent years. Both come as we await the inauguration of president-elect Barack Obama, the man who began his campaign back in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention with the momentous line, we are “one state, the United States of America.”

Taken together, the two pieces demonstrate the enormous challenges Obama faces. From them, we can clearly see that the process of uniting America will be a far greater challenge for the next president than fixing the economy.

The Challenges Facing our Next President.

As always, the entire thing. Today’s was particularly good, with T. Boone Pickens making an appearance.

Thoughts?

Well, they didn’t wait until the last minute to pass this thing, and thank god for that. The last thing Bush needed was not getting this agreement in place and having to deal with troops being in Iraq illegally.

From MSNBC:

BAGHDAD - Iraq’s Cabinet on Sunday approved a security pact with the United States that will allow American forces to stay in Iraq for three years after their U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

The decision followed months of difficult negotiations and, pending parliamentary approval, will remove a major point of contention between the two allies. Parliament’s deputy speaker, Khalid al-Attiyah, said he expected the 275-member legislature to begin debating the document this week and vote on it by Nov. 24.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said all but one of the 28 Cabinet ministers present in Sunday’s meeting, in addition to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, voted for the pact by a show of hands.

What was the hold up? Well, it was some pretty basic stuff, and I’m glad we gave Iraqis these concessions given that this is their country…

It provides for the departure of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of 2011 and gives Iraq the right to try U.S. soldiers and defense contractors in the case of serious crimes committed off-duty and off-base. It also prohibits the U.S. from using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq’s neighbors, like Syria and Iran.

So no more attacks on Syria?

We shall see…

Be a witness to history…

My question: will this “YouTube” move be the exception or the rule going forward for Presidents? More specifically, if Obama is defeated in 2012, will the Republican candidate not do his or her weekly address via a technology like YouTube?

Honestly, something tells me that Obama will be breaking a lot of new ground with the technology he adopts to get his message out there. And there will be no way to go back.

Thoughts?