As noted on KOS this morning, the big story in yesterday's elections is that Republican turnout remained essentially unchanged from last year but that Democratic turnout collapsed. Stories touting a Republican 'resurgence' may therefore be dismissed out of hand. The real story, it seems to me, is yet another validation of the old saw, 'we get the government we deserve'. Read em and weep, folks.

have zero impact. State politics is so locally driven, and hard to understand if you're not there, that it is way to simple and easy to say it means anything nationally.

The race where Sarah Palin inserted her politics went Democrat. For the first time in over 100 years.

Now I think THAT says something.

No health care reform, we still have don't-ask-don't-tell, wars rage on in Iraq and Afghanistan, Joe Lieberman rules the Senate, Guantanamo is still open, no treaty on global warming--what was I supposed to be excited about again?

on the other hand, John McCain could be at Bethesda talking to his doctors about a strange, heavy feeling in his chest and Sarah Palin could be picking out new pastels for the Oval Office.

you believe, as I do, the future of American progressivism(?) depends on the continued radicalization of the Republican party it may turn out to have been a not good thing. maybe.

I guess I don't believe that American Progressivism depends on continued radicalization of the Republican Party.

I tend to believe that the whole "education" meme actually works, albeit slowly, and that slowly but surely people really are learning.... one person at a time... that fundamentalism, radicalism, reactionaryism, etc aren't moving any of us closer to better living.

These types will always be with us. But slowly, slowly the ranks of educated, progressive (dare I say it - caring?) people swells.

Articulate assessment of reality.

Thoughtful analysis of the legalities and ramifications of complex problems.

Thorough airing of minority/opposition opinions.

Focused attention on goals despite a country with a 20 second attention span.

Willingness to believe in the process and the structures, without pulling the FEAR lever every other day.

Strength of character, strong family dedication, date nights, balance of public and private passions, ignoring idiots most of the time but calling some of them out periodically, Halloween Decorations, and an organic garden next to the playground at the White House.

Yes, these things all excite me. One year later even more so.

But I thought the campaign slogan was "Change We Can Believe In," not "The Lesser of Two Evils," or "Jesus Christ, Can You Imagine President Palin?!?"

(Well, except the "thorough airing of minority opinions." I give less than a shit about that.) Except that it's pretty difficult for me to see how any substantive things have changed. I'm pretty sure that if Obama had run on the "Organic Garden Next to the Playground" platform, Hillary would have won the nomination.

Our part in the war in Iraq is coming to a close, don't ask don't tell will be repealed, the senate and the house are working on healthcare (as opposed to them working on a plan as to how to blow up Iran) and Guantanamo has far fewer people in it. I'm not saying it's time for party hats, but it's also not time to ask the doctor for more Prozac.

Would Be)" does fall somewhat short of hope/expectation, even though certainly true. (On the other hand, falling short of hope/expectation must be the realistic default expectation for any politician, no?)

I'm willing, though, to cut him a fair amount of slack on the circumstances-beyond-control grounds of the economic meltdown crisis requiring urgent management starting before Day 1.

Not so much, though, on both covering up Bush War Crimes (in direct violation of Conventions on Torture, which as Reagan-signed, ratified treaty is Supreme Law of the Land under Article VI) and even continuing some of the worst Bush abuses (e.g., civil liberties violations -- indefinite detention without trial, assenting to "legalization" of warrantless wiretapping, betrayal on Telcom immunity, "state secrets" abuse, etc.). These affirmative embraces (i.e., not just failure to get around to something yet) of reprehensible/illegal Bush policies cannot so easily be excused by how much and how urgent is what else is on his plate.

In fact, her power at the polls was demonstrated in dramatic fashion. A few weeks ago an unknown schlub from something called the Conservative Party (obviously couldn't call the GOP that) languished at eight or nine percent. Palin arrives and the schlub comes within a point or two of going to Congress against a legitimate Democratic candidate, who was even endorsed by the ousted RINO! Moderate GOPers beware---she's the face of a new Conservative Inquisition.

Can you imagine a plausible first term for Obama where he went after Bush and also got health care passed? I just can't do it. I can't get past the idea that the Bush thing would have so polarized and locked down most aspects of government in that one fight that almost nothing else would have gotten done. More to that same point, the media would have been so obsessed over any kind of Bush/Cheney trial that Obama would have found it next to impossible to get any other message, let alone one as nuanced as healthcare, out to the american people. I'm not saying this excuses Bush or Obama, just that I think there was a real choice that Obama had to make between those 2 things and that, in my opinion, he picked the right one.

The Convention on Torture explicitly excludes exactly the sort of domestic political considerations/calculations you raise as excuses for not investigating and, if appropriate based on investigation, prosecuting credible allegations of torture. It's called Rule of Law. We used to believe in it (or at least make a pretense of doing so). (Courtesy Glenn Greenwald, emphasis his [but you should go read the whole thing!]):

Ronald Reagan, May 20, 1988, transmitting the Convention Against Torture to the Senate for ratification:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

• Continue Reading

Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV:

No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.

See also this Greenwald post.

I love to watch Glenn Greenwald on the Bill Moyers TV Show because he's so idealistic (actually, both of them). But it's difficult to govern with unvarnished idealism.