I was listening to the local pop station this morning, and the three usually inane DJs were enraged by the auto bailout story, particularly the part of the story that had even Congressmen marveling at Detroit's tinnest political ears:

After hearing that the chief executives of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler flew here in their costly private jets, Ackerman questioned whether they would use the billions of dollars they are seeking to fix underlying management problems that landed them in a financial mess in the first place.

"There's a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," said Ackerman at a Financial Services Committee hearing yesterday.

"Couldn't you have downgraded to first class or something, or jet-pooled...to get here?" Ackerman asked. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo."

ABC's evening newscast went with the story last night, going so far as to look up coinciding flights on Expedia, from Detroit to Dulles. There were 12 of them, starting at about $200.

The last Rasmussen poll showed more than 40 percent opposed an auto bailout, with 70 percent worried the government would run out of money if it kept traveling this road. Now that the jet story has reached "Fey effect" levels of pop-culture exposure, it may very well keep Congress from rewarding the Big Three's jet-setting paupers with our money.

I'm with Mitt. Let 'em go.

A video retrospective on "Uncle Ted" Stevens, if you dare.

My personal favorite moment isn't in there, when Ted took the floor of the Senate, his Incredible Hulk tie shaking against his chest with barely contained rage, to declare the Bridge to Nowhere his hill to die on.

"I will put the Senate on notice -- and I don't kid people -- if the Senate decides to discriminate against our state and take money only from our state, I will resign from this body," Mr. Stevens vowed.

For the record, I think he's been unfairly maligned for his notorious explanation of the Internet as a "series of tubes," but much of the other maligning has been warranted.

U.S. Special Operations Forces / the CIA struck yet again in Pakistan’s northwest. A senior al Qaeda leader named Abdullah Azzam al Saudi is thought to have been killed in the unmanned Predator/Reaper airstrike, but this has not been confirmed by U.S. intelligence. Azzam serves as a liaison between al Qaeda and the Taliban, and also is involved with al Qaeda’s “external operations” – meaning they network that plots attacks on the West.

Today’s attack isn’t extraordinary because it killed an al Qaeda or occurred inside Pakistani territory: Five senior al Qaeda leaders have been confirmed killed during 30 strikes and incursions into Pakistan’s tribal areas this year. The strike is unusual because it took place in the Bannu Frontier Region, outside of Pakistan’s seven Taliban-controlled tribal areas. The rest of the 29 U.S. strikes inside Pakistan this year took place in the tribal areas of Bajaur and North and South Waziristan.

So is this meaningful? Yes. Most of the reports from Pakistan focus on al Qaeda and the Taliban’s presence in the tribal areas. But for years the groups have been expanding into what are called the “settled districts” of the Northwest Frontier Province. Al Qaeda and Taliban safe houses and camps, and their area of influence extend far outside of the tribal areas. Is the United States planning to strike deep inside Pakistan?

The Pakistani government has weakly protested the U.S. strikes. Earlier this week the Washington Post claimed the attacks were occurring with the approval of the Pakistani government. Will the Pakistani government accept U.S. strikes beyond the tribal areas?

Russia's plan for the new Iskander theater ballistic missile doesn't stop with their proposed Kaliningrad deployment. Aviation Week reports that once domestic requirements are met, Russia may export the weapon to Syria, India, and the UAE -- to start. Algeria, Belarus, Kuwait, and Vietnam have also expressed interest in the SCUD replacement, though Russia claims to be working on an "Echo" variant of the rocket for export that reduces the Iskander's range from 400km to appx. 280km.

Russia's export of its latest and hottest weapon system isn't exactly news -- they've been supplying the world with military hardware for decades. What is interesting is the potential for another East v. West technological showdown in the Israeli-Syria theater. Israel is currently deploying a robust rocket and missile shield that is designed to knock out everything from short range Hezbollah rocket attacks all the way up to an Iranian Shahab-III ballistic missile laydown. That shield will include top-of-the-line American missile defense systems such as the Patriot PAC-3, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and a highly-sensitive new x-band radar, as well as Israeli weapon systems like David's Sling and Iron Dome.

As with the Six Day War, the October War, and the invasion/occupation of southern Lebanon, Israeli and Syria may once again test the mettle of US vs. Russian weapon platforms in the near future. Considering the frightening power of ballistic missiles one would hope that America's defense technology again proves superior.

If nothing else, Ivan's callous proliferation of these heavy shooters should be enough to cast doubt on any existing plan to cut missile defense from the budget.

[Photo: Aviation Week]

The Financial Times reports that Barack Obama is “negotiating terms” under which Robert Gates will remain as Secretary of Defense in an Obama administration. It was widely assumed that Gates would keep his job regardless of who won the election and while I’ve heard conflicting reports about whether he wants to stay, his success means he will almost certainly be offered the choice. If McCain had won, Gates merely would have been rewarded for his competence -- a rare quality in the Bush administration but one that was increasingly visible in the management of the war. For Obama, Gates could be of far greater value.

Barack Obama's problem is that he promised a withdrawal from Iraq that is neither prudent nor possible. More than that, withdrawal at the pace Obama demanded during the primary is no longer warranted: it’s clear we’re winning the war. It was good politics to promise a withdrawal during the primary, and it was something of a wash during the general election, but it would be a complete disaster to deliver on that promise as President. Perhaps the most serious foreign policy mistake Obama made during the election was to support unconditional meetings with our enemies (bad politics and bad policy), and he’s since made fairly clear that he has no intention of following through on that promise. Why should his 16 month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq be any different?

The new Iraqi deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces is 32 months, rather than the 16 Obama had promised during the primary, and it may well be possible to safely remove the bulk of U.S. forces by the end of 2011. What Gates can do is provide Obama with the cover to remove troops more quickly. Gates will be one of only a few voices who can credibly say that the facts on the ground allow for Obama's timeline -- that Obama isn’t threatening the gains made by U.S. troops. But Gates can also help provide Obama with the cover to move a little more slowly than his supporters might like -- another voice cautioning, from the inside, against too quick a draw-down.

There’s almost no one who would object to keeping Gates at the helm. As Harry Reid approvingly noted, Gates isn’t even a registered Republican. The usual suspects will whine about how this isn't the change they were promised, or that keeping Gates furthers the perception that Democrats are soft on defense -- in this case too soft for even Obama to find one up to the task of secretary -- but that's all background noise.

Pardoning Lieberman, reaching out to Clinton, and keeping on Gates -- perhaps things won't be as bad as we feared.

He may get the chance to become the underwhelming, charmless Secretary of the Interior, if he is disappointed in his quest to become the underwhelming, charmless Secretary of State.

National Journal reports that Barack Obama has selected CBO Director Peter Orszag to head up the Office of Management and Budget. Orszag is widely respected on both sides of the aisle for his professionalism and his command of budgetary detail. The Orszag appointment also suggests that one of Barack Obama's priorities as president will be controlling health care costs, which Orszag has consistently identified as essential to getting the government's fiscal house in order.

Multiple reports suggest that leading Democratic senators will make health care one of the first issues taken up in the Obama presidency. The Washington Post reported several days ago that the CBO, under Orszag's direction, is preparing a report on cost-saving health care measures. And that report is attracting the interest of one of the last liberal lions:

Aides have refused to indicate what direction Kennedy will pursue but have made it clear he does not intend to cede his longtime leadership role on health policy. They expect to get valuable assistance next month when Peter Orszag, head of the independent Congressional Budget Office, releases a two-volume report on the need for health reform and a set of policy actions that could achieve measurable savings.

Orszag's pet issue is controlling health care costs; his work is being cited by Kennedy aides as they prepare to introduce Kennedy's health care reform blueprint. Kennedy is the Senate's most influential Democrat on health care. Does all this mean that Obama will support Kennedy's approach?

Rasmussen released results of a new national poll yesterday showing Americans put more faith in the concept of free market capitalism than they do in our national leaders’ ability to apply it. According to the poll:

Forty-four percent (44%) of Americans agree with President Bush’s declaration last week that "free-market capitalism is far more than an economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility - the highway to the American Dream."

The same survey found that just 22 percent disagree with that sentiment, while 33 percent are undecided.

As a pollster I know it’s sometimes hard to separate the “message” from the “messenger.” So in this case, given President Bush’s low approval ratings and the economic meltdown over the past two months, I’m surprised the number of free market supporters isn’t even lower.

The news gets worse when voters are asked about their confidence in our national leaders’ ability to handle current economic problems. Republicans as well as Democrats seem equally unsure. Rasmussen writes this:

In a finding rare to Rasmussen Reports’ recent surveys on the economy, there is virtually no partisan divide when voters are asked about their confidence in policymakers. Only 27% of Republicans are somewhat confident in U.S. policymakers, as are just 30% of Democrats. Twenty-one percent (21%) of unaffiliateds agree.

Voters are also pretty cynical when it comes to the economic rescue plan recently passed by Congress:

Adding to this perception is the further finding that 48% of voters think Congress’ passage of a $700-billion economic rescue plan last month was bad for the country. Just 25% think the plan, first proposed by the Bush administration, was good for the country, and 26% are undecided.

Read the full Rasmussen report here.

CNN and AP are both reporting that Stevens fell short in the Alaska Senate race against Democrat Mark Begich (although CNN is only sourcing Begich's campaign at this point, which let's face it, could be the same source AP is using as authoritative.)

The AP is apparently so excited about the Republicans losing another seat that they've lost themselves in the clumsy purple prose of electoral ecstasy:

The crotchety octogenarian built like a birch sapling likes to encourage comparisons with the Incredible Hulk, but he occupies an outsized place in Alaska history.

There may be a recount. Stevens deserves to lose. Coleman doesn't in Minnesota, where his lead has been slip-slidin' away for two weeks even before the recount has begun.

Oh, dear:

She has coruscating intelligence, beauty, style and -- drumroll, please -- a butt. (Yes, you read that right: I'm going to talk about the first lady's butt.)

As I gradually relaxed, as Michelle strode onto more stages and people started focusing on her clothes and presence instead of her patriotism, it dawned on me -- good God, she has a butt! "Obama’s baby (mama) got back," wrote one feminist blogger. "OMG, her butt is humongous!" went a typical comment on one African-American online forum, and while it isn't humongous, per se, it is a solid, round, black, class-A boo-tay. Try as Michelle might to cover it with those Mamie Eisenhower skirts and sheath dresses meant to reassure mainstream voters, the butt would not be denied.

As America fretted about Obama's exoticism and he sought to calm the waters with speeches about unity and common experience, Michelle's body was sending a different message: To hell with biracialism! Compromise, bipartisanship? Don't think so. Here was one clear signifier of blackness that couldn't be tamed, muted or otherwise made invisible. It emerged right before our eyes, in the midst of our growing uncertainty about everything, and we were too bogged down in the daily campaign madness to notice. The one clear predictor of success that the pundits, despite all their fancy maps, charts and holograms, missed completely? Michelle's butt.

We were too bogged down, you see, in the daily madness of discussing issues, arguing talking points, polling voters, and generally conducting the business of electing the next leader of the free world to address the pressing issue of Michelle Obama's rear end. There was a time when a female writer would have relished a female public figure's words being examined instead of her anatomy, but now that we have left behind that provincial trope, we're free to rhetorically and literally leer at the First Lady's behind and debate its social implications. Free at last.

This piece begins with the words, "free at last"— as in Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, which referenced the reverential, ancient gospel song. "Free at last"— as in the eloquent and efficient phrase used by generations of African Americans to embody the tragedy of slavery, segregation, and America's shame, and the corresponding hope that we could overcome them.

In this case, the phrase is used differently, as in, "Thank God Almighty, we are free from an oppressive history of First Ladies with insufficiently Sir-Mix-a-Lottian figures."

I only wish I could say the piece was tongue-in-cheek, but a) it's not very, and b) that phrase might be inappropriate given the subject matter.

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

This is precisely what the Democratic party achieved with Barack Obama’s historic victory on November 4. The Democrats increased their majorities in both the House and Senate while eliminating anything even resembling a functioning opposition. Those Republicans that survived the massacre are exhausted, scattered and foraging for scraps. It was a bloodbath, and one that should have satiated the blood lust of even the most committed Democratic partisans. Yet some Democrats can’t seem to accept a complete and total victory -- they want to round up the wounded and execute them. Joe Lieberman’s name is at the top of their list.

To his most rabid detractors on the left, Lieberman’s perceived offenses are too many to count. The grievances are tedious and petty and small in comparison to what compelled him to offend in the first place: loyalty to a friend and a commitment to victory in Iraq (a war that many of his opponents once supported but have since abandoned and absolved themselves of any responsibility). Lieberman knew the potential consequences of his political disobedience, but in the end President-elect Obama, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel were magnanimous and merciful -- and why wouldn’t they be? None of Lieberman's statements was beyond the pale.

Of course, to the Jake Tappers, Keith Olbermanns and Joe Kleins in the “press corps,” any statement from the McCain campaign was considered beyond the pale, but Michael Scherer catalogues the ‘worst of the worst’ and there’s nothing there that wasn’t echoed by a hundred other decent and honorable supporters. Perhaps Lieberman was more committed to the fight than his counterpart on the Obama campaign, Chuck Hagel, but any sense of proportion has been lost by the hysterics leading the anti-Joe lynch mob. And there are no pitchfork wielding Republicans intent on burning Chuck Hagel at the stake. There was hardly a peep from the right over his heresy because nobody cared.

The Democratic party and the left won a stunning victory in this election, and while they should be savoring it (and most are) a few are busy trying to settle old scores. It’s pathetic, but it’s also cause for some optimism: these people are a cancer on the Democratic party that even a landslide victory couldn't cure.

Since everyone's been a bit preoccupied with the question of Sarah Palin's next political or entertainment venture, I shamelessly propagate this rumor read on a celebrity blog (by a friend of mine who sent it to me while I was just sitting here reading "The Economist," of course).

Desperate Housewives creator Marc Cherry is reportedly courting the former Republican Vice-Presidential candidate for a cameo appearance on the fifth season finale of the ABC dramedy, airing in May.

Marc is “very hot to trot to have her appear on the season-five finale,” an inside source revealed to the New York Post on Thursday.

“Marc is highly enamored of Sarah and sees her as the ultimate guest star [playing] a similar version of herself. The idea has gone over surprisingly well with execs at Disney, who see it as a blockbuster based on Sarah’s huge ratings on ‘Saturday Night Live.’ “

Palin is back to running the state of Alaska (and disappointing the paparazzi, poolside in Miami), but that won't stop activists from skipping over 2010, the debate of the future of the party, and any TV ventures for Palin entirely in their attempts to get her on the ticket in 2012.

Afghanistan's president raised quite a few eyebrows yesterday when he insisted he would provide safe passage to senior Taliban leaders for negotiations, including Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar. The Taliban responded immediately to Karzai's offer, rejecting it of course.

Mullah Bahadar, the Taliban's second-in-command, insisted NATO forces must leave. "As long as foreign occupiers remain in Afghanistan, we aren't ready for talks because they hold the power and talks won't bear fruit," he told Reuters. "The problems in Afghanistan are because of them."

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid also weighed in. "The Taliban's (leadership) decided they will not take part in any peace talks with Karzai or Karzai's administration until such a day when foreign forces leave Afghanistan," he told the Associated Press. "The Taliban will pursue jihad against foreign forces and (Karzai's) government."

Combined with other rejections of offers to talk, it is safe to say the senior Taliban leadership has no interest in negotiations. So why did Karzai make the offer? Slate's Fred Kaplan comes close to figuring it out:

Two inferences can be made from [Karzai's offers to talk to Omar]. First, Karzai is not really proposing anything; Omar has no interest in negotiating for peace, and Karzai certainly knows this. Second, he made the remarks in Kabul after returning from a meeting in London, so he may have meant them for domestic consumption—as a demonstration that he's not a puppet of the West.

There is another component to this: Karzai has to show the Afghan people he has repeatedly offered the olive branch to the Taliban, and that it is the Taliban leadership that refuses to sit down and talk.

Kaplan then asks if there are any Taliban that can be turned. The answer is yes, but the current focus on peeling off low mid-level Taliban leader and their fighters is not a new effort. In may of 2005, the Afghan government established the Tahkim-e-Solh program (Strengthening Peace) that did just that.

I saw this program in action in June of 2006 when I was embedded with the Canadian Army in Kandahar. The Canadians coaxed a Taliban leader named Mullah Ibrahim, who was influential in the Panjwai and Zari districts, the birthplace of the Taliban. At the time, the Strengthening Peace program had peeled off 1,569 low and mid-level Taliban leaders and fighters over the course of a year.

So the effort to pull in the rank and file of the Taliban really is nothing new. So what changed? The media has finally started to pay attention to Afghanistan after years of dwelling on Iraq. And so has the U.S. military.

Michael Isikoff reports that yet another Clintonite will serve in the Obama administration:

President-elect Obama has decided to tap Eric Holder as his attorney general, putting the veteran Washington lawyer in place to become the first African-American to head the Justice Department, according to two legal sources close to the presidential transition.

Holder, who served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, still has to undergo a formal vetting review by the Obama transition team before the selection is final and is publicly announced, said one of the sources, who asked not to be identified talking about the transition process. But in the discussions over the past few days, Obama offered Holder the job and he accepted, the source said. The announcement is not likely until after Obama announces his choices to lead the Treasury and the State Department.

Chief Justice John Roberts has been known to liven up his dissents by writing like a crime novelist. Jan Crawford Greenburg notes that his predecessor, Chief Justice Rehnquist, had a penchant for the theater:

Rehnquist, who had a flair for drama (remember the gold stripes he'd later add to his robe?), also proposed a skit or variety show by the clerks. It was something he eventually would institute.

“I would enjoy seeing what each annual crop of law clerks, together with such help from the Justices that they might wish, could do in the way of a gridiron show or other parody or satire on the court," he wrote.

This tidbit was discovered in the small portion of Rehnquist's papers which were just opened up to the public. Greenburg writes that Rehnquist dictated that his "papers would not be publicly released until the death of every justice who was sitting with them in a particular term. ... That means we only have access to cases over a three-year period, since John Paul Stevens joined the Court in 1975."

Greenburg has more here.

Rob Portman, former US Trade Representative and OMB Director under George W. Bush, shares his thoughts here.

The renewal of the Republican Party starts with an embrace of the core principles of fiscal conservatism, smaller government, traditional values, personal responsibility and ethics, not just when we campaign, but when we govern.

But adherence to these core principles is only a starting point. The key to success is turning these principles into compelling policy solutions to real-world concerns.

There is an understandable nostalgia in the Republican Party for Ronald Reagan. He grew the party and was a popular president while staying true to core values. But I believe we sometimes overlook what made him successful.

Based on core conservative beliefs, he fashioned innovative, and ultimately successful, solutions to seemingly intractable challenges of his time: a dysfunctional welfare system, the Cold War, stagflation from the Carter years, and increased levels of violent crime, among others.

And he effectively communicated his policies in a way that resonated with the American people. His simple and clear explanations, his relentless optimism about America, and his focus on results, not partisan advantage, allowed him to reach beyond the Republican Party to garner support.

We must do the same thing.

Portman, who has played the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in mock debates for the last three election cycles, is a potential candidate for governor in 2010 or the US Senate in 2012. So he may be in a position to follow his own wise advice.

Read it all.

Patrick Ruffini assembles a list of all potential 2010 Republican challengers to Democratic incumbents in the Senate. A couple names I'd add: Congressman and former governor Mike Castle to take on Joe Biden's replacement in Delaware and Tommy Thompson to challenge Russ Feingold in Wisconsin.

Update: In related news, First Read reports John Cornyn will head the National Republican Senatorial Committee this cycle.

From today's Washington Post:

After the G-20 global economic summit wrapped up Saturday afternoon, the Italian prime minister headed for ... the Fashion Centre at Pentagon City. A mall? Since he's already seen Washington's famous monuments, Berlusconi really wanted to see one of the area's famous shopping meccas, Italian Embassy spokesman Niccolo Fontana explained. "He just walked around the mall. Many Italian tourists recognized him, and there were even a few Americans who wanted to take pictures with him."

Berlusconi, surrounded by a flock of nervous-looking security guys, browsed for 10 minutes in Macy's housewares and linens department, moved on to a sports store, then spent about 20 minutes at Brookstone, where he started flying a remote-controlled toy helicopter. Sold! The Italian delegation bought "several" of the $49.95 gadgets before heading to the airport.

You can't make this stuff up.

Senate Democrats have chosen not to give Joe Lieberman a reason to leave the party:

Senate Democrats backed away from a major rebuke of Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) on Tuesday morning, keeping their colleague as the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in the next Congress and stripping him only of the gavel on a lesser subcommittee.

Though many Democrats and liberal activists wanted a tougher penalty for Lieberman’s disloyalty — his aggressive criticism of President-elect Barack Obama’s candidacy and his support of GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) — Senate Democrats ultimately voted to allow Lieberman to stay at the plum Homeland Security post.

Instead, Senate Democrats agreed to take away Lieberman’s top spot on the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection.

Senators approved the motion by a resounding vote of 42-13.

The Netroots are not taking the news well.

The New York Times editorial page endorses the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Time's Washington bureau chief Jay Carney swoons:

From Obama's 60 Minutes interview, this seemingly obvious but all-too-rare, refreshingly non-ideological declaration about how best to govern:

We've gotta come up with solutions that are true to our times and true to this moment. And that's gonna be our job. I think the basic principle that government has a role to play in kick starting an economy that has ground to a halt is sound.

I think our basic principle that this is a free market system and that that has worked for us, that it creates innovation and risk taking, I think that's a principle that we've gotta hold to as well. But what I don't wanna do is get bottled up in a lot of ideology and is this conservative or liberal. My interest is finding something that works.

And whether it's coming from FDR or it's coming from Ronald Reagan, if the idea is right for the times then we're gonna apply it. And things that don't work we're gonna get rid of.

Talk about a welcome change from the ideology-first recent past.

I assume that that line about the "the ideology-first recent past" is a reference to the guy still living in Barack Obama's White House. Don't you remember the right-wing ideologue who signed McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, who pushed for McCain-Kennedy immigration reform, and who signed No Child Left Behind, a bill co-authored by Ted Kennedy?

Just remember that when Barack Obama tries to pass legislation to nationalize health care, eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, and fund abortions with taxpayer money, he's not being ideological. He's just trying to find "something that works."

Joshua Kurlantzick's analysis of how the global economic crisis will affect the Chinese regime is well worth your time. One of the lessons of the current mess is that so-called "decoupling" - the theory that emerging markets were no longer dependent on the major economies - has been exposed as false. As the saying goes, we're all in this together. As U.S. consumption dwindles, Chinese production dwindles too. This means major layoffs in Chinese factories, and growing political instability in China. Kurlantzick:

As the economy turns sour, protest is rising. Many young Chinese have never even lived through an economic downturn. In the Pearl River Delta, months of layoffs are sparking street protests by blue-collar workers fearing they'll never see back pay owed to them and creditors furious at factory owners who shut their doors and vanish. These demonstrations are turning violent, and ultimately could provoke a violent response, since Chinese factory owners increasingly hire thugs to hit back at demonstrators. Overall, demonstrations are spreading, according to Radio Free Asia, which closely follows the Pearl River Delta. Though China has in recent years weathered thousands of protests, they tended to be clustered in poor, rural areas, not the prosperous Delta or other middle-class regions of the country.

Economic instability leads to political instability. That is one of the lessons of the Great Depression. Will declining economies in Russia, China, and Iran makes those countries' leaders more cautious, or more adventurous? More liberal, or more oppressive? We don't know the answer. We do know that it is already a dangerous world. And that the global economic downturn makes it more dangerous still.

She divorced him, got custody of their daughter, married a tennis instructor, and so as to prevent a descent into divorce cliches, she thought outside the box and worked to defeat constitutional reforms he proposed in 2007, which would have made him president for life. Not your average passive aggressor, Marisabel Rodriguez.

Rodriguez, an attractive blonde radio personality and journalist, is now running for mayor of her hometown Barquisimeto to replace an outgoing pro-Chavez candidate. She's reportedly luring much of the woman vote, and support from those disappointed with Chavez's "21st-century socialism," which has produced such delights as "overflowing sewage, human waste in the streets and the lack of electricity." It will only get worse as Chavez's petro-bucks keep falling.

She demonstrated a natural touch as she entered homes and chatted with women about their lives. About 225 miles southwest of the capital Caracas, Barquisimeto may be a city of a million people but in many ways it feels like a small provincial town.

In this neglected neighbourhood, Mrs Rodriguez, despite her fame, is not a celebrity but one of their own. "She has gone through what we have gone through," said Guillermina Barrios, 45, who works as a restaurant cook. "She has suffered emotionally."

Polling shows either of two anti-Chavez candidates could win the office, but if they split the vote, the city may remain in Chavez's camp. Here's Rodriguez bashing her ex on CBS earlier this year.

Roll Call covers the after-action report by Chris VanHollen (D-MD), Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). VanHollen gets credit for the 24-seat gain (so far) Democrats achieved in the 2008 election. He's quick to point out that despite the impressive Democratic gains, it seems like Barack Obama's coattails had little to do with it:

“A lot of people did not focus on the fact that in order to win a lot of these seats, we had to win a lot of votes” from supporters of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) said in an interview on Monday...

Of all the Democratic pickups this year, only three were in districts that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) carried in the 2004 White House election: Connecticut’s 4th district, where former investment banker Jim Himes ousted Rep. Christopher Shays, and New Mexico’s 1st and New York’s 25th districts, where Democrats won open seats.

Van Hollen praised victorious Democrats for figuring out how to prevail in challenging districts. He cited Idaho’s 1st district, Alabama’s 2nd district and Maryland’s 1st district as places where his party’s candidates faced long odds.

“They had to create an identity for themselves that was separate and distinct from the national Democratic ticket,” he said...

According to the DCCC, the House Democratic candidate performed better than Obama in 42 competitive districts, while Obama did better than the Democrat in 14 districts. The data are not fully available in 11 additional competitive districts...

Reading between the lines, VanHollen has reason to be worried about his success. The current Democratic majority rests on dozens of Members of Congress who will still need to craft "separate and distinct" identities from the national Democratic party. With 81 of the 256 House Democrats now residing in districts won by George Bush in 2004, Democrat leaders will need to be highly attentive to the views of their moderate minority when they debate things like the automaker bailout, tax increases, immigration, urban aid, and other dicey issues.

VanHollen was concerned enough about the challenge going forward that he tried to escape the DCCC job for the coming cycle, knowing that he is almost certain to lose seats in 2010. Of course, defending a strong majority is a nice challenge to face; Congressional Republicans would trade in a heartbeat.

On another note, VanHollen's presentation again reminds Republicans of the importance of competing for all 435 House seats. Every credible candidate helps conservatives in the next election -- whether a given candidate wins or not. If nothing else, it turns previously safe races into ones where the opposition is forced to spend money better used elsewhere. And when the political winds eventually blow your way, it seems that one party winds up with lots of near misses, while the other enjoys surprise wins.

Neocons may indeed be hailing the coming Hillary era at State, as the Guardian reports:

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.

The piece sounds more thinly sourced than a New York Times hit piece on McCain, citing no "unnamed sources," but simply saying "the Guardian has learned." I have yet to figure out why Clinton would want the position. The slot is prestigious, but the job description includes a particularly anti-Clintonesque requirement that she serve Barack Obama's legacy, not her own. As a fairly sensible thinker on foreign threats, who seems unallergic to the exercise of American power where appropriate, she'd undoubtedly part ways at times with her more "naive" boss. If I were Obama, I'd be wary. There's plenty of undermining that can go on in the State Department while Clinton keeps up appearances of loyalty.

I continue to think power playing in an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate would be more to her liking. But if she truly wants the position, there'd be something tragically poetic about this:

Could former President Bill Clinton's charitable affairs cost Hillary Clinton the secretary of state job in Barack Obama's administration?

That's what insiders are wondering after reports that the former president's financial and foreign entanglements could hurt the New York senator in her bid for a Cabinet post.

Politico.com reported Monday that Democrats "are becoming exasperated" by Bill Clinton's response to requests for information about his finances.

Predictably, most other would-be saboteurs (outside the Clinton marriage, that is) are in the liberal wing of the party.

And the clearest opposition to the Clinton appointment comes from Obama's backers on the left of his own party, whose initial support for him was motivated in part by a distaste for the Clinton dynasty, and who now view her reemergence with some dismay.

"There's always a risk of a Cabinet member freelancing and that risk is enhanced by the fact that Hillary has her own public and her own celebrity and that she comes attached to Bill," said Robert Kuttner, a Clinton critic and co-editor of the American Prospect whose new book, Obama's Challenge, implores the president-elect to adopt an expansive liberal agenda. "The other question is the old rule – never hire somebody you can't fire. What happens if her views and his views don't mesh?"

An unnamed Democratic source points to distraught and somewhat pathetic Obama backers who "believe in this stuff more than Barack himself does," and see the potential packing of the administration with Clinton officials as counter to their dream of an administration filled only with lollipop princesses and dreams. Meet Barack Obama, the political opportunist, guys.

Christopher Hitchens, recent Obama backer and noted neocon ally, missed the "Strange New Respect" express throughout the primaries, and is not about to jump on now, calling the potential Clinton pick a "ludicrous embarrassment:"

Christopher Hitchens appeared on "Hardball" Monday night and voiced his strong opposition to Hillary Clinton being named Secretary of State.

Appearing with Peter Beinart of Time, who is for Clinton's appointment, Hitchens said, "This is the woman who played the race card on Obama... This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia."

He also brought up the Clintons' overseas fundraising connections and called the idea of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State a "ludicrous embarrassment."

He forgets, apparently, that Obama did his share of expert race-card playing, and Hillary was often the victim.

Meanwhile, all the right people are happy, and all the right people are mad, so count me in.

Update: According to Page Six (which means it's better-sourced than a NYT hit piece on McCain), Chris Matthews doesn't much like the Hillary idea:

"I don't understand it," Matthews bellowed. "Why would he pick her? I thought we were done with the Clintons. She'll just use it to build her power base. It's Machiavellian. And then we'll have Bill Clinton, too. I thought Obama didn't want drama. He's already got [chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel and [transition team leader John] Podesta. He'll have even more drama with her.

"She's just a soap opera. If he doesn't pick her, everyone will say she's been dissed again, we'll have to live through that again."

Is Pakistan's shadowy Inter-Services Intelligence agency supporting and even fighting alongside the Taliban and allied groups against NATO and Afghan forces? Defense Tech's Christian Lowe posted a snippet of an interview with Eric Edelman, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, which suggests the ISI is still active against allied forces in Afghanistan. Here is the exchange:

Defense Tech: In Afghanistan, have you seen any evidence of Pakistani agencies' involvement in assisting the Taliban and other parties within Afghanistan against US troops and also within the [federally administered tribal areas]?

Edelman: I think that, you know, there's a long history here. The Pakistan government for a very long time has regarded Afghanistan as its 'strategic depth' and clearly there have been relationships that go back to the Mujahaddin era that have persisted. We've had some concerns about it, we've expressed those concerns. We had a meeting with the head of ISI, general Pasha ... my view is we ought to give him a chance to see how he can handle his new responsibilities and go from there.

Defense Tech: So is that a 'yes?'

Edelman: You'll have to make a judgment on whether that was a yes or not.

Reports of the ISI's aiding the Taliban are nothing new. In December 2006, Afghan intelligence captured a Pakistani intelligence officer who was "in charge of relations between the ISI and al Qaeda leaders" in Kunar province.

But the most controversial claim was made by Lieutenant Colonel Chris Nash, a U.S. Marine Corps leader of an Embedded Training Team operating on the Afghan-Pakistani frontier from June 2007 until March of this year. Nash claimed the ISI provided helicopter resupply support to "a 'base camp' in Nangarhar Province occupied by fighters from the Taliban, al Qaeda and the Hezb-i-Islami faction led by Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar." Nash told this to the Army Times after a copy of his PowerPoint briefing was leaked. Several military officers have denied seeing evidence of ISI involvement in Afghanistan.

Nash states in his presentation that the information is classified (I have a copy of the presentation). "ISI involved in direct support to many enemy operations…classification prevents further discussion of this point," Nash states in the notes. "Area specific."

Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, and multiple "purges" of the ISI, elements of Pakistani intelligence are still supporting Taliban and al Qaeda attacks inside Afghanistan. Edelman and the rest of the U.S. government dances around the issue of Pakistani complicity with the Taliban and even al Qaeda inside of Afghanistan because the United States is dependent on Pakistan to keep NATO's vital supply line open.

The New York Times has a report today on alcohol abuse in Wisconsin:

When a 15-year-old comes into Wile-e’s bar looking for a cold beer, the bartender, Mike Whaley, is happy to serve it up — as long as a parent is there to give permission.

“If they’re 15, 16, 17, it’s fine if they want to sit down and have a few beers,” said Mr. Whaley, who owns the tavern in this small town in southern Wisconsin.

While it might raise some eyebrows in most of America, it is perfectly legal in Wisconsin. Minors can drink alcohol in a bar or restaurant in Wisconsin if they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian who gives consent. While there is no state law setting a minimum age, bartenders can use their discretion in deciding whom to serve.

When it comes to drinking, it seems, no state keeps pace with Wisconsin. This state, long famous for its breweries, has led the nation in binge drinking in every year since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began its surveys on the problem more than a decade ago. Binge drinking is defined as five drinks in a sitting for a man, four for a woman.

People in Wisconsin are more likely than anywhere else to drive drunk, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The state has among the highest incidence of drunken driving deaths in the United States.

A few thoughts (that I hope aren't colored by my bias as a native Wisconsinite):

1. Most states allow exceptions for underage drinking with a parent. See this map created by the Alcohol Policy Information System (details about these exceptions may be found here):

Does drinking with the permission of a parent really "raise some eyebrows in most of America"?

2. In 2007 Wisconsin ranked 7th in alcohol consumption per capita, but ranked 19th among all states in alcohol-related traffic fatalities per capita in 2004 (I'm not cherry-picking, just using the latest figures I can find for each statistic). Is it fair to say that Wisconsin has "among the highest incidence of drunken driving deaths in the United States"?

3. These are good laws. I don't know whether they lead to more responsible alcohol consumption, but who would want to live under the yoke of a state where it's illegal for a 19 year-old to drink a beer with his father while watching a football game?

4. What's up with the guy drinking a Bud Light in the accompanying photo to the Times's story? A true Wisconsinite would be drinking Miller, Leinenkugel's, or New Glarus.

Sir Paul McCartney recently revealed to BBC Radio that his former band kept hidden a song they recorded 40 years ago but that “the time has come for it to get its moment.” For Beatles aficionados, could there be anything more exciting? Entitled “Carnival of Light,” the track runs approximately 14 minutes and was performed in public only once—at an electronic music festival. As McCartney explained to Radio 4’s “Front Row” show (and as reported by Reuters), “I said all I want [John, George, and Ringo] to do is just wander around all the stuff, bang it, shout, play it, it doesn't need to make any sense. Hit a drum then wander on to the piano, hit a few notes, just wander around. So that's what we did and then put a bit of an echo on it. It's very free."

Not so excited now, are you? The teaser alone makes you think less “Revolution 1” and more “Revolution 9.” Just longer. But, as one of my colleagues says, this is Paul’s way of staying relevant and, out of sheer curiosity, fans will be compelled to hear it—at least once. (This coworker is still recovering from only partially listening to “What’s the New Mary Jane.”) And no doubt this will generate attention. Just like the time Starbucks played McCartney’s album Memory Almost Full on a continuous loop for an entire day at all their locations. (This brings to mind The Simpsons waiter who worked at the New Year’s Eve-themed restaurant where the ball drops every few minutes: “Please kill me!”)

As for “Carnival of Light,” Reuters reports, “in order for [the song] to be released, McCartney would have to get the agreement of Ringo Starr and the estates of John Lennon and George Harrison. According to the BBC, McCartney had wanted to include the track on The Beatles' Anthology compilations in the mid-1990s, but the rest of the band vetoed the idea.”

That’s right. Even Ringo vetoed it.

Mike Allen reported over the weekend that "Gregory B. Craig, a well-known Washington lawyer who quarterbacked President Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense, has been chosen White House counsel by President-elect Barack Obama".

Believe it or not, the time Craig spent shilling for Clinton may have been his most honorable days of work. John J. Miller wrote in this May 2000 article National Review:

In the early 1980s, [Craig] was an attorney for John Hinckley, the man who shot President Reagan and three others. Craig helped put together an insanity defense that led to Hinckley’s acquittal. Nine years later, he advised Ted Kennedy in the Palm Beach rape case involving the senator and his nephew, William Kennedy Smith. ...

Craig orchestrated a 1984 [Senate] hearing for Kennedy on alleged human-rights abuses committed by Nicaragua’s rebels, the Contras. He worked with groups closely tied to the Sandinista regime to find witnesses for the forum, which led to a round of anti-contra news coverage in the U.S. Soon afterward, however, Joshua Muravchik, currently of the American Enterprise Institute, exposed a fraud: The most compelling witnesses — three Miskito Indians — had been served up by the Sandinistas.

And a fourth participant, Father Alfredo Gundrum, an American priest living in Nicaragua, had been asked to play the role of honest broker — to place the testimony “into some kind of perspective,” as Kennedy put it. Gundrum, described as “totally apolitical” in background material distributed by Kennedy’s staff, told of how the Contras launched vicious raids on Indian villages “almost every day.” Yet Gundrum had been the subject of a San Francisco newspaper article just one month before the hearing. He was photographed standing before his church with a Soviet-made rifle in his hands and quoted as saying, “To me it was a day of grace the day the Sandinistas took over, and I really mean it.”

In 2000, while serving as the lawyer for Elian Gonzalez's father, Craig did the bidding of the Castro regime by killing an agreement "to transfer custody of Elian to his father, as long as [Elian's family from Miami] could live with the boy and his father in an environment free of U.S. and Cuban officials." Since then, Craig has represented foreign officials accused of war crimes such as former Bolivian Defense Minister Carlos Sánchez-Berzaín and Pedro Miguel González, the president of Panama's legislature, who is under federal indictment for the murder of U.S. Army Sgt. Zak Hernández Laporte.

But at least he didn't lobby for Fannie Mae.

There appears to be little angst among conservatives at the prospect of Hillary Clinton joining the Obama administration as Secretary of State. The idea was warmly embraced by Henry Kissinger, who our President-elect seems to hold in high-esteem, Governor Schwarzenegger, who likely has no more sway on Obama than the proverbial guy in the neighborhood, and Jon Kyl -- surely Senator McCain put in a good word today as well. The love affair that was sparked last spring between Clinton and the Obama-fearing right continues to smolder, surely a surprise to those who suspected that such an unholy alliance couldn't last beyond the convention. Whether Clinton would accept the job, or why she would want it, is not clear, but the right would be happy enough to have her.

On the issues, Clinton's a hawk. Not only did she vote to authorize the war in Iraq, she delivered her vote in style -- her floor speech on October 10, 2002,