I just stumbled across an “instant editorial” on the Ft. Myers News-Press web site encouraging President-elect Barack Obama to choose New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson for Secretary of State.

You know that Obama’s former rival, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), has all the buzz and seems to have all the momentum. Thanks to the wonders of anonymous sources, Obama is now expected to make Clinton’s nomination to the post official after Thanksgiving.

SIDEBAR: Check out the lead in that article. Never mind that he isn’t president yet; Obama is already pulling off “daring and difficult diplomacy.” The author of that article must have had to stop a few times while writing it to wipe his teary eyes. END SIDEBAR

But the News-Press’s David Plazas makes a case for Richardson that is as powerful as it is succinct:

Richardson is New Mexico’s governor (executive judgment), he’s been a congressman (legislative experience) and he’s served as the Clinton Administration’s ambassador to the United Nations and energy secretary (national security credentials).

The experience of Sen. Hillary Clinton, who’s expected to get the nod, does not come close to equaling that of Richardson, who once negotiated a hostage release in the Middle East.

I couldn’t agree more.

It doesn’t look like Richardson is going to be the pick. And that’s unfortunate—not just for the missed opportunities Obama is passing up, but also for the mess he’s setting himself up for with Clinton. I understand the “team of rivals” concept. But considering some of the things Clinton said about Obama during the course of the campaign, treating Clinton like any other rival would be like treating Michael Jordan like any other basketball player.

Read the rest of the “instant editorial” endorsing Richardson here.

As I was writing my column for tomorrow’s paper about the Big Three bailout pursuit, I began wondering why we haven’t heard much from Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm about this issue.

As it turns out, she has been very vocal about her support for the bailout—the national press just hasn’t been covering it.

So why haven’t we seen her in Washington this week? Everyone involved in the domestic auto industry is there, lobbying for the deal. But no sign of Granholm.

I checked out her web site and realized that she was actually in the Middle East this week on another trade mission.

Yes, that Middle East—as in, Jordan, Israel, etc.

Her web site detailed the trip and said she was fulfilling her promise to go anywhere and do anything to promote Michigan and try to secure jobs for and investment in the state.

That’s laudable, I thought. And given Michigan’s terrible economy, that’s what she should be doing.

But to do it the week that the domestic automakers were trying to salvage a lifeline for the companies that employ a half a million people in and around her state?

Bad move.

I was already writing a blog post about this in my head—absentee governor, etc.—when I read that she was actually cutting her trip short to appear in D.C. to join the lobbying efforts in favor of the bailout.

Good move.

Keep an eye out for my column on the Big Three bailout this weekend: Our friend Ron Gettelfinger is going to make an appearance. If you live in this area, you can read it in the print edition of the Opelika-Auburn News tomorrow. If not, I’ll post a link to it here. 

Regarding UAW president Ron Gettlefinger’s attack on the auto industry in Alabama earlier today, here’s the statement U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby’s press office sent me on Shelby’s behalf:

While facing lean times, the American automotive industry is alive and well.  It’s just no longer based in Detroit.  As a right-to-work state, Alabama continues to attract numerous new companies to make investments in our state. Successful businesses recognize that Alabama has a tremendous workforce and is a smart place to do business.

As is his nature, Shelby took the high road with Gettelfinger.

But I think you can read between the lines. 

I called around for reaction to the unflattering comments UAW Ron Gettelfinger made this morning about Alabama’s auto industry.

Gov. Bob Riley shot back:

“Alabama’s automotive assembly plants are models for efficiency and cost effectiveness for rest of the nation and the world—and we are proud of that. Every state I know of, including Michigan, has incentives to attract major economic projects, so that’s obviously not the issue.  The real reason companies keep locating in Alabama is the quality of our workforce and the exceptional products they make. With all due respect to Mr. Gettelfinger, great workers making great products is a proven recipe for success in Alabama—and it doesn’t require a bailout.”

Did you miss all the fun this morning? You can read the blog post I did immediately after the conference here, read the New York Times article about the conference here and/or see the video for your very own self here (the portion regarding state incentives for automakers begins at 3:32).

Incidentally, I spoke by phone earlier with Alabama House Minority Leader and State Rep. Mike Hubbard, who also chairs the Alabama Republican Party. His reaction boiled down to a general belief that it is Gettelfinger’s union—and the $70/hour pay rates they have managed to squeeze out of the Big Three—that is “choking the life out of” the domestic auto manufacturers.

I expect a formal statement from Hubbard later today.

Also, I am awaiting reaction from U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, who, as ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, has had a lot to say about this bailout—and none of it has been positive. I expect that his reaction to Gettelfinger’s comments will be similarly ... um, disapproving.

I have also invited Alabama Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham to weigh in. I’ll let you know what I hear from him.

As I said this morning, Gettelfinger has picked a fight with this issue that he’s simply not in a position to win. You don’t save your own hide by tearing up someone else’s hide. I’m pretty sure Gettelfinger’s comments today will not do much to endear him to the lawmakers who hold his members’ fates in their hands.

Well, as it turns out, anonymous sources aren’t always right.

As a follow-up to this morning’s post about Chicago businesswoman and philanthropist Penny Pritzker being President-elect Barack Obama’s top pick for Secretary of Commerce, Pritzker has said today that she is taking herself out of the running.

From CNN:

Pritzker said that she “never submitted any information for the vetting process to begin” and that “while there were discussions, I was never formally offered the position.

“I have obligations here in Chicago that make it difficult for me to serve at this time.”

Pritzker was Obama’s national campaign finance chairwoman and had been mentioned as the leading candidate to become Obama’s secretary of commerce. She is the chairwoman of TransUnion, a national credit reporting agency.

In a written statement her office issued Thursday, she said, “I think I can best serve our nation in my current capacity: building businesses, creating jobs and working to strengthen our economy.”

Pritzker noted that “it has been my great privilege to serve in the Obama campaign. I look forward to helping our new president in every way possible and am excited about the future under his leadership.”

CNN reports in the same story that U.S. Sen. John McCain has thrown his full support behind Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano for homeland security secretary. McCain said today that Napolitano’s “experience as the former U.S. attorney for Arizona, Arizona’s attorney general, and as governor warrants her rapid confirmation by the Senate, and I hope she is quickly confirmed.”

Napolitano had better get busy on that paperwork. 

Mike Huckabee isn’t wasting any time.

He’s got a new television show.

He’s got a new book.

He’s making the rounds on the television talk shows to talk about the book.

And just 16 days after America elected Barack Obama after a grueling 21-month presidential campaign, Mike Huckabee is taking his book tour to Iowa.

Coincidence that the book tour will take the former presidential candidate to the state that’s home to the first-in-the-nation presidential contests?

Nah.

Candidates love to pre-campaign with books. It gives them a reason to get out there and talk to people without having to admit that their ego won’t let them just sit around for two years.

John McCain did it with “Faith of my Fathers.” And hey—it worked for Barack Obama, who did it with “Dreams from my Father” and “The Audacity of Hope.”

There’s a power struggle, an ideological struggle within the Republican Party. Is it a return to traditional conservatism that will return the GOP to power? Or is it a new kind of conservatism that’s needed?

Huckabee represents the latter.

We talked way back in March how the Dallas Morning News’ editorial endorsement of Huckabee would resonate long after the 2008 election cycle.

US News & World Report has given Huckabee’s Republicanism a name: Conservative populism.

It’s conservative social values, yes. But it’s also a stronger emphasis on environmental responsibility.

It’s a commitment to low taxes, yes. But it’s also a departure from the all-taxes-are-bad-taxes mantra to which so many Republicans have married themselves for so long.

Huckabee talked a lot about “common sense” during his presidential campaign. And now he’s brought that theme to his book, “Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement that’s Bringing Common Sense Back to America.”

SIDEBAR: I would have advised Huckabee against that first part of the title. “Do the right thing”? Is that “right” as in correct, or “right” as in Republican? See the problem here? Come to think of it, if we’re looking at prior presidential candidate authorship as a pattern, maybe Huckabee ought to have worked something about his father into the title. END SIDEBAR

Anyway, Huckabee’s book tour will take him through a good number of states where the GOP is strong.

Nothing like getting the base all jazzed up, and getting a few digs in on your potential opponents—most notably, Mitt Romney, with whom Huckabee shares no love lost—in the meantime.

Here’s the bottom line: There’s a battle brewing over the soul of the Republican Party. Victory in the 2012 primaries—and the path, perhaps, for the GOP over the next 20 years—will be determined in Republican clubs over lunches and dinners over the next two years. Who can build the party? Who can make inroads with the party faithful? Who will be able to articulate a vision for what the GOP needs to be, and who can inspire disillusioned Republicans to work to make that vision a reality?

Mike Huckabee says, “Yes, I can.”

This is going to be a quick post.

In a desperate attempt to salvage some sort of deal in Congress to bail out the Big Three automakers, United Auto Workers president Ron Gettelfinger is trashing the auto industry that the State of Alabama has built.

He just ticked off a list of incentives that Hyundai, Toyota and Mercedes were offered in exchange for locating their businesses here in Alabama.

I will try to find the clip for you on CNN.com, because that’s where I’m watching it.

Gettlefinger appears to be making the argument that if Alabama can offer foreign automakers incentives to come to America, then the federal government can bail out the domestic automakers.

Apples and oranges.

No, not oranges. Foxes. Apples and foxes.

Thanks to the shamelessness of journalists who don’t have any qualms whatsoever about using anonymous sources, we’re learning more about President-elect Barack Obama’s Cabinet choices.

You already know that Hillary Clinton is being vetted for Secretary of State.

Former assistant attorney general Eric Holder is reportedly Obama’s pick for attorney general. “Folks in the know who won’t give their names” say his appointment is all but a done deal, and that the Obama transition team is simply waiting for the vetting to conclude before making the announcement.

Holder served as assistant AG in Bill Clinton’s administration under AG Janet Reno. I haven’t Wikied Holder, but I expect that in addition to his musings on racial profiling, interrogation tactics and Marc Rich being dragged up in his confirmation hearings, he’ll probably be asked a thing or two about a boy named Elián and an incident known simply as Waco.

I had said here last week that I expected Obama to pick Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano for attorney general. I got Napolitano right, but not in the right spot: Obama is reportedly eyeing her for Secretary of Homeland Security, along with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle for Health and Human Services chief and Penny Pritzker for commerce secretary.

Here is an exact copy of my reaction when I saw that news:

????

First, I’m not sure what being governor of Arizona has to do with homeland security. Wait a minute—enforcing immigration law, you say? I’ll give you that Napolitano has lots of experience with immigration law, but her record is very much a mixed bag. Expect this to be an issue in her confirmation hearings.

Why wouldn’t Obama go with U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, a noted intelligence authority? She would bring the same demographic Napolitano would (presuming that that’s a consideration for Obama), and she has a lot more and a lot better experience.

Then we have Tom Daschle.

“Folks in the know who won’t give their names” say that Daschle has worked out a deal such that he won’t just be implementing the Obama health care plan; he’ll be the point man on writing it.

Hmm.

I wasn’t really politically aware yet when Hillary Clinton (see above) spearheaded her husband’s health care initiatives in his first term, so I don’t know a lot about how Daschle played in to its doomed fate. But I do know that the initiative itself was a high-profile failure.

You can read some about Daschle’s record here, and you can check out a book he wrote about the health care crisis here. (Check out some of the folks who provided “advance praise” for Daschle’s book.)

So I’m not sure what to think about Daschle’s pick. I guess I just have to be satisfied that it’s not this guy.

Interestingly, Daschle’s wife is a lobbyist. But not just any lobbyist! A lobbyist who is a partner in a firm that does work for clients on—guess!—HEALTH CARE! She’s reportedly given her notice and will open her own lobbying firm, to focus on transportation, by the end of the year.

Finally, we have Pritzker, whose qualifications to lead the Commerce Department seem to be that she A) founded a retirement community, B) founded an airport parking business, C) chairs a credit reporting agency and D) is a philanthopist. Subqualifications include that she is from Chicago and—oh, yes—she ran Obama’s finance committee, which shattered all conceivable records in presidential fundraising.

Pritzker’s bio says that she “delegates day-to-day management, but is always available as a coach and advisor.”

Oh, good. For a minute there, I was thinking this appointment might be a payback.

As some have already noticed, we have a bunch of people from the Clinton Administration lining up to serve with Obama. Is that change? I guess it is—from the current administration.

In addition, we have folks with lobbyist ties filling the ranks. I thought we were beyond that, too.

I know what you’re thinking. So what if people served with Clinton; if they have good experience and they are good at what they do, why not?

And as far as lobbyists go, it’s nearly impossible to populate an administration without people who are former lobbyists or who have lobbying ties.

I know. But no one twisted Obama’s arm and forced him to promise change and an administration where lobbyists would no longer write the rules.

Stay tuned for more on Obama’s Cabinet picks. 

Hey guys, take a minute and check out the new web poll below.

I want to know how you feel about the Big Three bailout. You can add your own answers—or just vote and submit your thoughts as a comment to be displayed here. 

Republican incumbent U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has conceded the defeat of his re-election bid to Democratic challenger Mark Begich, the mayor of Anchorage.

Begich’s win makes 58 for the Democrats—two shy of the promised land of a filibuster-proof majority.

All eyes now turn to Minnesota, where GOP incumbent Norm Coleman and former “Saturday Night Live” comic Al Franken are going at it in a recount of the tightest contest in the nation.

Out of 2.9 million votes cast, Coleman’s razor-thin lead is down to 174 votes—and shrinking. Lawyers for the two camps are staking out their positions on questionable ballots that may or may not be counted—and with observations like these, that’s no surprise.

Count on this one to get even nastier, folks.

Meanwhile, Georgians—and anyone who lives in a state that borders Georgia and shares a media market with the Peach State—will settle the last remaining contest of the 2008 cycle on Dec. 2, when GOP incumbent U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss faces off with his Democratic challenger, State Sen. Jim Martin. This race has drawn lots of high firepower from across the nation; John McCain even made his first post-race political appearance in Georgia on Chambliss’s behalf.

This race, and perhaps the fate of the filibuster-proof majority, will hinge on turnout, turnout, turnout. Who can get their voters to the polls when there’s only one race on the ballot?

Hang on to your hats, fellow political junkies. It’s going to be a bumpy two weeks.

And when it’s all said and done, the Democrats may not need Joe Lieberman after all.

Halloween’s over, but there are still some scary things out there.

Take the survey released yesterday by the Physicians’ Foundation. According to Reuters:

Primary care doctors in the United States feel overworked and nearly half plan to either cut back on how many patients they see or quit medicine entirely, according to a survey released on Tuesday.

And 60 percent of 12,000 general practice physicians found they would not recommend medicine as a career.

“The whole thing has spun out of control. I plan to retire early even though I still love seeing patients. The process has just become too burdensome,” the Physicians’ Foundation, which conducted the survey, quoted one of the doctors as saying.

This just reinforces the reality that Americans are slowly coming to recognize: While we swim in a sea of specialists, there aren’t nearly enough primary care doctors to go around—and there are fewer every day.

Here’s a little personal experience for you: I began looking for a primary care physician in August. I called around and found that most doctors in my area aren’t taking new patients. When I finally did find one who was, I was told that the first new patient appointment I could get was last Monday—Nov. 10, for those of you without a calendar nearby.

That’s three months for an appointment.

But what could I do? The only other option was a walk-in clinic—not exactly where you want to have your preventative care done.

Here are some of the other findings from the 12,000 answers provided:

You probably heard about the school collapse in Haiti a couple of weeks ago.

But did you know that the school collapse was the just the latest in a series of disasters to befall the island nation?

Consider this CNN article that reports on the worldwide food shortage and uses Haiti as an example.

Most mothers, the writer says, choose what their children will eat.

Mothers in Haiti choose which of their children will eat.

The ones who eat stand a chance—albeit small—at survival.

The ones who don’t ... well, their mothers make the choice to sacrifice them so that the rest may be able to live.

Can you imagine such a situation?

Can you imagine looking into the eyes of two or three of your children, knowing that they are starving, and making the decision not to feed them?

Read the story from CNN. We’ve talked a lot about oil and gas distribution this year, as the price of crude oil spiked to record levels this summer.

If only people would pay as much attention to the fact that there are millions of people—millions of children, alone—literally starving to death throughout the world.

I think about this kind of thing when I see stories on TV about the excesses of Hollywood, the high fashion, the things that are available on Rodeo Drive, the $500 bottles of wine, the expensive spa treatments, the dinners that run into the thousands of dollars, the $23 million murals bought and paid for with aid that is supposed to go to feed these hungry people ...

... when people in Haiti are eating dirt cakes that they’ve baked in the sun.

One hunger aid agency estimates that somewhere in the world, a child dies of hunger every six seconds.

That’s 300 children during your favorite sitcom.

How is it that the rich nations of the world can tolerate, can stomach this unimaginable horror?

It’s World Hunger Relief Week.

What can—what will -- you do to help?

Want to know why Detroit’s Big Three automakers are in such trouble?

Part of it is because they are simply too heavy to be effective. All the years of those lucrative union contracts are finally catching up with them.

But part of it has to do with the products they’ve produced (or, more accurately, the products they haven’t produced). While Japanese and other foreign automakers have developed more fuel-efficient cars and have stayed ahead of the curve—and have done it by building American factories that employ American workers and spawning American suppliers that employ American workers—without unions, by the way—the Big Three have continued to stamp out the same old stuff.

Here are the Top 10 worst cars of 2008, as compiled by Cars.com based on sales throughout this year:

10. Pontiac Grand Prix:  8,252 sold
9. Dodge Magnum: 6,833 sold
8. Chrysler Pacifica: 6,227 sold
7. Hummer H-2: 5,488 sold
6. Lincoln Mark LT: 4,038 sold
5. Cadillac Escalade: 3,779 sold
4. Mercury Mariner Hybrid: 2,011 sold
3. Chrysler Crossfire: 1,819 sold
2. Cadillac XLR: 1,091 sold

And the worst-selling car of 2008: The Dodge Viper, which has sold only 959 units this year.

But wait! That’s actually good news for the Viper: That 959 figure represents a 149 percent increase from 2007 sales!

Click here for pictures of the vehicles (you might need visual aids, since you aren’t seeing much of these cars on the roads).

For its part, the Detroit Free Press is trying to come to the aid of its big employers (and advertisers): It’s published a list of “Six Myths about the Detroit 3.” They are:

1. Nobody buys their vehicles.
2. They build unreliable junk.
3. They build gas-guzzlers.
4. They already got a $25-billion bailout.
5. GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.
6. They don’t build hybrids.

Click here for the Free Press’s explanations of the “myths.”

Notice what’s not on the myth list: Anything about how those union contracts have crippled the Big Three.

Keep in mind that union leaders have made it clear that they have no intention of re-opening those contracts for renegotiation in exchange for a bailout that would save the companies that are responsible for fulfilling them.

For what it’s worth, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told a congressional committee today that he opposes including the Big Three in the $700 billion not-a-bailout plan passed by Congress several weeks ago. Congress did not anticipate non-financial companies participating in the plan, Paulson said.

But the lobbying continues:

But auto executives, backed by leading Democrats, insist they need another $25 billion in emergency loans to avert a collapse of one or more of their companies before year’s end. That would bring the total federal help for the industry to $50 billion this year.

The executives, along with the head of the United Auto Workers union, were making their case Tuesday at a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee as auto bailout backers hunted the votes necessary to pass the plan in a postelection session. Aides in both parties and lobbyists tracking the plan privately acknowledge they are far short.

And if you can stand one more list, CNNMoney offers this seven-question breakdown of the auto industry bailout issue. Check it out for answers to questions like, how many jobs are we talking about, what are the pros and cons of bankruptcy and what happens if there is no bailout.

American press reported today that the Obama transition team is getting serious about vetting Hillary Clinton: They’re now reviewing Bill Clinton’s international dealings for potential conflicts of interest.

This potential appointment seems to be picking up steam; it’s looking more likely as Obama’s team is getting down to the nitty-gritty on Hillary.

But if you listen to the British press, they seem to think it’s already a done deal. 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.

Um ... Do they know something we don’t?

It appears that the threats Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made against U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman and his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee are 98 percent bark, 2 percent bite.

According to CNN:

Senate Democrats appear willing to let Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, keep his powerful Homeland Security Committee chairmanship, even though he campaigned vigorously for Sen. John McCain’s White House bid, two sources told CNN Monday.

But the veteran lawmaker will, according to the sources, lose a less prominent chairmanship of a subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

“He’s not happy about it, but he accepts it,” one of the sources said.

Yeah, Joe. You can’t chair a committee no one’s ever heard of anymore. Take THAT!

But wait! There’s more!

Several lawmakers involved in the discussions over Lieberman’s fate credited President-elect Barack Obama’s desire to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus and let bygones be bygones as being a key reason Democratic leaders have agreed to support allowing Lieberman to keep his committee chair.

Let’s read between the lines here:

Lieberman’s fate is due to one key factor, CNN says, but it’s really one key factor and one happenstance factor.

The key: President-elect Barack Obama’s desire to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus.

The happenstance: Let bygones be bygones.

Let’s be honest. It’s a lot easier to let bygones be bygones when you’re passing all your important legislation and getting all your federal court nominees confirmed without so much as a second thought as to those pesky, annoying minority filibusters.

And Lieberman has to stay in the Democratic caucus to ensure that the Democrats have a shot at the 60-seat majority to make it happen.

So! The president-elect may be showing some good will, it’s true. But it’s also true that it’s in his own best interests to do so.

By the time you’re reading this tomorrow morning, Senate Democrats will be weighing Lieberman’s fate, once and for all.

Democrats will meet behind closed doors in the Old Senate Chamber in the Capitol Tuesday morning. The Lieberman matter will be the first item on the agenda and a vote will be cast by secret ballot.

Lieberman and several other senators are expected to make presentations about Lieberman’s behavior during the campaign. Several senators who are angry with Lieberman told CNN they would question Lieberman in detail about what he said and why when he was campaigning for Republican nominee McCain.

Lieberman is going to MAKE A PRESENTATION about why he supported John McCain.

I bet that slideshow won’t be available on the web.

Just another meeting for the Don’t-you-wish-you-were-a-fly-on-the-wall series.

See also:

President-elect Barack Obama met with his former foe, U.S. Sen. John McCain, today in Chicago.

The two made nice and discussed ways they could “come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time,” according to a statement made after the meeting.

“It is in this spirit that we had a productive conversation today about the need to launch a new era of reform where we take on government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington in order to restore trust in government, and bring back prosperity and opportunity for every hardworking American family,” they said.

Since his loss Nov. 4, a lot has been made about what McCain does now. Senate Republicans are a smaller minority than they were before his loss, and at least a few of his colleagues blame McCain—at least, in part—for the GOP’s tumble.

Most of the focus about potential Obama-McCain partnerships has centered around how McCain can help shepherd Obama’s legislative initiatives on which the two have common ground through Congress.

But maybe there’s something else out there for McCain.

Throughout the campaign, Obama took every opportunity to praise McCain’s military service, calling him a patriot who had made great sacrifices for the freedoms Americans enjoy.

How cool would it be if Obama tapped McCain to head the Department of Veterans Affairs? (Here’s the bio page for the current secretary in the Bush Administration.)

It would give McCain an opportunity to care for and improve services for the veterans of this country, many of whom he served with in Vietnam—and ensure that the new generation of veterans produced by the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan don’t suffer the same mistreatment and failed services that World War II- and Vietnam-era veterans have.

I haven’t heard anyone mention it as a possibility, probably because the Arizona Senate seat McCain would vacate would be filled by an appointment by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano. She would certainly choose a Democrat, and that would further minimize Republicans—and possibly even push Democrats to the 60-vote threshhold they need to break Republican filibusters.

Still, it’s a nice thought. 

Have you heard about the questionnaire the Obama transition team has worked up for potential administration hires?

It’s possibly the most comprehensive document ever given to non-intelligence government employees.

And if you want a job with the Obama Administration, we hope you keep good records. They want a copy of every resume and biographical statement that has been issued by you or on yor behalf over the past 10 years.

Do you now or have you ever kept a diary? Turn it over.

Ever shack up or live-in with a romantic liaison? Uncle Barack and Uncle Rahm want to hear all about them.

Facebook? MySpace? Obama wants to be your “friend.”

Do you own a gun? Does any member of your family own a gun? The president-elect wants to know about it.

On that last point, the Obama team’s curiosity has raised the hackles of gun-rights advocates, who make no bones about their distaste for the transition team’s reach into what they consider an individual right.

Although he’s been squishy on it in the past, after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision earlier this year recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to bear arms, Obama said he agreed with the Court’s decision and that gun ownership was an individual right.

Obama also believes that abortion is an individual right. When Obama spoke to a Planned Parenthood gathering during the campaign last year, he said that the “first thing I’d do as president” (1:31) would be to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act,” legislation recognizing an individual right to abortion. Pro-life advocates say FOCA would supersede any and all state restrictions on abortion.

SIDEBAR: The irony of that position is that pro-choice advocates often oppose abortion restrictions at the federal level because they believe abortion regulations should be left to the states to decide. But then they support FOCA, which would undermine those very regulations at the state level. END SIDEBAR

Go with me on this for a minute. If Obama believes that gun ownership is an individual right, and Obama believes that abortion is an individual right, then while he’s inquiring about their gun ownership, why isn’t he also asking potential employees whether they have had an abortion?

Ridiculous, isn’t it?

You can read the extremely thorough job application here.

One more thing: I’d like to see this application filled out by the president-elect himself.

... And I wonder what it will look like once Hillary is done with it. 

Want to know why I’ll never be president?

Barack Obama is learning about it right now.

Lose the Blackberry?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

For anyone who’s ever carried one, life without a Blackberry is ... well, hardly like life at all.

OK, maybe that’s an exaggeration. But not by much. 

Here’s another sign for President-elect Barack Obama that the Russians aren’t interested in going out of their way to mind their manners with the U.S.:

MOSCOW – Russian President Dmitry Medvedev plans to travel this month to Cuba and Venezuela, which have increasing military and trade ties with Moscow.

Hmmm ... weren’t we just talking about Russia?

Add one more name to the list of potential Obama Administration Cabinet appointees: Hillary Clinton.

The president-elect’s former (bitter) primary rival is creating some buzz among the D.C. establishment as her name has surfaced as a possible pick for Secretary of State.

Of course, speculation abounds about whether the pick is a real possibility, or if the Obama transition team is simply floating her name to demonstrate that she is being considered—kind of like the VP thing.

And I heard one pundit last night opine that even if the buzz isn’t legit, it isn’t likely that Obama’s folks will throw cold water on it; they don’t want to signal that she wouldn’t be considered—kind of like the VP thing.

The only thing about the VP thing: Hillary was never really under consideration. But she appears to be for this—or, at least, for something: The New York senator had a hush-hush meeting with the soon-to-be-ex Illinois senator about what role she might play in his administration earlier this week.

So it’s a waiting game—his folks don’t want to extend the offer unless they’re sure it would be accepted, and she doesn’t want to seem too eager in case she is passed over again. Kind of like high school kids trying to find prom dates.

But pundits say this has a different feel about it. And the veracity of the rumor may actually be demonstrated by what isn’t being said: Gloria Borger described to Anderson Cooper last night how, since talk has increased around the possibility this week, her sources have gone “radio silent.”

Pros of this pick: Hillary does have more foreign policy experience than Obama does, and choosing her would certainly evidence his respect for her as a policy heavyweight.

But he’d be passing over a bunch of people who have more foreign policy experience than she does. And one has to wonder, much as we did with the VP talk, whether she would be willing and able to accept and advance his administration’s policies as her own, even when they differed from her own. I have said before that when you wanted to be president yourself, it’s difficult to set aside all the things you see in the mirror that you believe qualified you for that run. Could she effectively substitute his judgment for her own?

And then there’s that other issue about the guy who actually was president. It’s hard to imagine that he wouldn’t be making the rounds, whispering how they did it back in his day.

From Hillary’s perspective, I’m not sure I see why this would be an attractive opportunity. Sure, it would be something new and different; it would provide new challenges at a time when the challenges at home (jobs, the economy, the New York state budget) are getting tougher. But her hallmark has always been domestic policy. Would she really walk away from her post in the Senate, where she would wield more power than ever before and where she could have an open line to the White House in terms of helping to shape the health care reform that she has pursued for more than 15 years?

Maybe it will happen. But I just think it would require a complete subversion of the dominant paradigms in Hillary Clinton’s professional and personal life.

If it does happen, there will be two points of delicious irony in it: One, Bill Richardson will be one of the also-rans passed over. I’m sure Hillary Clinton wouldn’t hate that, since he got the experience that qualifies him for the position at State while serving in her husband’s Cabinet—but then turned around and endorsed Obama in March.

Two, she actually would be answering the phone at 3 a.m.

President-elect Barack Obama’s first foreign policy test is shaping up to be his commitment to the United States’ plans for a missile defense shield in Europe.

It began on the heels of Obama’s victory last week with the introductory/congratulatory phone calls Obama had with various world leaders. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev released a statement after his conversation with Obama last week that both leaders agree an “early bilateral meeting” should be arranged, according to the Associated Press.

Not to be outdone, Polish President Lech Kaczynski posted a story on his web site saying that Obama had “emphasized the importance of the strategic partnership of Poland and the United States and expressed hope in the continuation of political and military cooperation between our countries. He also said that the missile-defense project would continue.”

The Russians reacted angrily, causing the Obama camp to clarify and/or revise whatever earlier remarks Obama had made to Kaczynski:

“President Kaczynski raised missile defense, but President-elect Obama made no commitment on it. His position is as it was throughout the campaign: that he supports deploying a missile defense system when the technology is proved to be workable,” Obama senior foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough said.

Well, the Russians sense blood in the water and are putting on the full-court press to scuttle the portion of the missile shield project that would be based in Poland; meanwhile, Poland is left in the lurch while the president-to-be tries to find his way from candidate to commander-in-chief.

As he’s doing so, he’ll be getting a visit from Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, the soon-to-be-leaving head of the U.S. missile defense agency. If it’s “workable” technology Obama seeks, Obering says he can deliver.

Lt. Gen. Trey Obering said Wednesday that missile technology is developed much further than some may believe it to be.

“Our testing has shown not only can we hit a bullet with a bullet, we can hit a spot on the bullet with a bullet. The technology has caught up,” Obering said Wednesday.

Although not mentioning the president-elect or any of his transition team by name, Obering said that many critics are “behind the curve.”

“What we have discovered is, a lot of those folks that have not been in this administration seem to be dated in terms of the program. They are kind of calibrated back in the 2000 timeframe,” Obering said.

“We’ve come a hell of a long way since 2000. So our primary objective will be to educate them on what we have accomplished.”

Hmm. Guess we don’t have to wonder about Obering’s opinion on this whole dust-up. Translation: If they’re waiting for the technology to come around before they commit to the missile shield, the president-elect and his advisers don’t know what they’re talking about.

Here’s the problem with Obama’s handling of this issue: Plans for the missile defense shield have been an integral part of the U.S.’s ability to develop relationships with allies in Eastern Europe, especially in the face of Russia’s rise under Putin (and now, his hand-picked successor, Medvedev). In addition, and more importantly, the missile defense shield is an integral part of protecting U.S. assets and troops in the Middle East, especially in the face of an increasingly hostile Iran (which, coincidentally, announced yesterday that it had test-fired a long-range surface-to-surface missile capable of striking Israel).

Here’s the thing: If a missile fired from Iran can hit Israel, it can hit anything in between—including U.S. troops in Iraq. The range also puts U.S. interests in Kuwait at the mercy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s good humor.

These are just some of the reasons why the missile defense shield cannot be a negotiable issue for Barack Obama. He has to show strength from the beginning on this point; any equivocation will be interpreted as a sign of weakness, and the Russians will assume—as they are already demonstrating with their most recent statement on it—that they can bully him into giving up the Eastern European portion of the project.

Doing so would be disastrous for U.S. allies and interests, let alone our ability to protect our troops stationed in that region of the world.

Obama kept voters happy throughout the last 21 months by treading carefully, when at all, into the finer points of any of his proposals. He stuck with generalities and almost never committed himself to a position. This is going to pay off for him in domestic policy, because he was able to keep his options open. He doesn’t have to produce specifics in policy because he took great pains to avoid specifics in politics.

But Obama is no longer a candidate. He is soon to be the commander-in-chief. And the obscure, guard-both-sides-of-the-fence statements that he’s been so adept at using throughout the campaign will usher in weakness and disaster if they are employed in dealings with foreign leaders.

Obama can’t play both sides of the fence on the missile defense shield. Either he supports it, and he’ll work with the Russians to try to make them comfortable with it, or he doesn’t.

Of course, the possibility exists that there is nothing we can do to assuage the Russians’ concerns. It’s entirely possible that they are just looking for something to get mad about. Giving in to keep them happy just to avoid confrontation (they had a word for that in the 1930s, as I recall) will simply end up weakening the United States and endangering our people. And then the Russians will probably soon find something else to be mad about, anyway.

The missile defense shield is the first test of Barack Obama’s foreign policy acumen.

Our allies and our enemies alike are waiting to see if he’ll pass.

Think the tightening U.S. Senate race in Minnesota is the closest race in the country?

Think again.

As an update to the watch we’ve been keeping on the still-outstanding U.S. Senate races, incumbent GOP Sen. Ted Stevens has fallen behind Democratic challenger and Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich—by three votes—as officials continue to count early and absentee ballots in that state.

Ramifications in this race are huge, either way. If Begich wins, Senate Democrats find themselves with 58 votes—two shy of the filibuster-proof magic number of 60. If Stevens wins, he could resign or be removed by the Senate Ethics Committee, setting up a special election to fill his seat. Sarah Palin has said she would consider running for the seat, but she told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer yesterday that she is “not one to appoint myself or a member of my family to take the place of any vacancy.”

Election 2008 is far from over.

... And my friends thought I’d go through a withdrawal period after voting day last week!

Sarah Palin appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live last night and offered a hint of an explanation for why her image went sour after the honeymoon period when she was named John McCain’s vice presidential nominee on the eve of the GOP convention in August.

She didn’t do enough Katie Couric-like interviews.

The Couric interview on CBS was seen the most damaging of the trio she did when emerging from a veritable media blackout. Fairly or not, the interviews portrayed Palin as aloof and incompetent; they sowed seeds of doubt in the minds of voters who were just getting to know her, and that doubt set the tone for the rest of the campaign.

Here’s the relevant excerpt from the King interview:

King: Should you have not done the Katie Couric interview?

Palin: Sure, I should have done the Katie Couric interview. Her questions were fair. ... Obviously, being a bit annoyed with some of the questions, my annoyance shows through. I am who I am, though, and I call it like I see it. Some of those questions, you know, regarding what do I read up in Alaska, were, to me, a bit irrelevant.

But there was nothing off-base, unfair about it. Certainly, I should have done the interview. To attribute that interview to any kind of negativity in the campaign or a downfall in the campaign, I think it’s ridiculous. In retrospect, in hindsight, I wish I would had more opportunities or that we would have seized more opportunities to speak more to the American people through the media.

King: Why didn’t you?

Palin: I didn’t call the shots on a lot that strategy. But I’m not going to look backwards and point fingers of blame in regard to the strategy. And just suffice it to say, it’s very, very important for candidates to be able to speak to the American voter.

King: Katie Couric, by the way, said last night that she thinks you should keep your head down, work really hard and learn about governing before contemplating a presidential run. What are your thoughts about her saying you should learn about governing?

Palin: I’d say thank you, Katie Couric, for your advice. I won’t reciprocate in giving her any advice, that’s for sure, because I have respect for her and the profession that she is in. I would have greater respect, though, for the entire profession called mainstream media if we could have great assurance that there’s fairness, that there’s objectivity throughout the reporting world. ...

I started out as a journalist. It’s that important to me that that cornerstone of our democracy is given the credence and credibility that it deserves.

King: But you do admit you should have done more (interviews)?

Palin: I would love to have done more. Yes. Yes.

Two things are obvious here:

One, Palin would have run a far different campaign than the one the McCain campaign charted for her. Two—and this one is ironic—Sarah Palin doesn’t have any patience for incompetence.

Need more proof? King asked her two questions that beg for the incompetent label; look at her responses.

King: Were you very sad when you learned the result (of the election)?

Palin: You know, sad because I knew had hard that our ticket had worked. Again, I’m convinced today, as much as I was along the campaign trail, that John McCain is a true American hero and he does have solutions that need to be…

No, Larry; I was thrilled, actually. More time to make moose soup.

Come on, Larry King. Fifty years of questioning guests, and you can’t come up with a better question than this?

King: Something all mothers fear, though, is the knowledge that her daughter is pregnant. Was that very hard for you to take?

Palin: Well, what do you think, Larry? Of course.

You know, I looked at her and thought—and I thought, Bristol, honey, you’re going to have to grow up really fast. She is a strong and kind-hearted young woman. She’s going to make a great mom. She is very strong. She’s going to be just fine.

But Bristol has an opportunity, at this point, also, to reach out to other young American women and let them know that these are absolutely less than ideal circumstances that she or any other unwed teenage mother are in. And it is not something to glamorize.

What do you think? Another stupid question.

I’ll have more on the remaking of Sarah Palin in my column on Saturday.

Courtesy of TPM via RealClearPolitics.com, here’s an update on the ongoing saga with Joe Lieberman, the prodigal son no one wants to wecome home:

The full Democratic caucus will vote on whether Joe Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee at its caucus meeting next week, a leadership aide confirms to us.

Previously, Reid’s office had held this possibility out but hadn’t made a final decision on whether to throw Lieberman’s fate to the full Dem caucus for a vote.

Ah. A vote.

The medical term for this phenomenon is passingthebuckitis: “Well, Joe, I’d really like for you to keep your chairmanship, but you see, these senators here ...”

It was surprising to me that Reid has set the vote for next week—well before the runoff of the Georgia Senate race and way ahead of any resolution in the Minnesota grudge match between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. I did notice, though, that Reid did not signal either that A) the vote would be binding, or B) when the result, if it was binding, would take effect.

So he’s leaving his options open.

Also, Blake Dvorak tells us that the president-elect has basically washed his hands of the matter:

Somewhat complicating matters are comments from Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter who told TPM that Obama doesn’t “hold any grudges” and that the president-elect would be “happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats.” Well, the issue is Lieberman’s committee chairmanship, not his caucusing preferences.

Washington Post assistant managing editor for politics Bill Hamilton apparently thinks a lot more of his reporters’ abilities this week than he has over the past 21 months.

He’s finally letting them focus on issues.

The Post reports that nearly 50 advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have been working for months to identify areas in which he could use executive orders to make an immediate impact upon moving in to the White House on Jan. 20.

One anonymous source (Gee! Another anonymous source! Now there’s something new!) says that the advisers are consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the “most onerous or ideologically offensive.”

Oh boy: Liberal advocacy groups identifying policies they regard as ideologically offensive? Sounds like more of that much-ballyhooed “bipartisanship” is on the way.

Obama is reportedly planning executive orders to reverse Bush Administration policies on federal funding for stem cell research, oil and gas drilling, carbon dioxide emissions and federal funding for international family planning groups that provide information on abortion.

Barack Obama might not have ever been in the Oval Office before Monday, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t familiar with the more shadowy aspects of the job.

Obama said earlier this year that he because he respects the Constitution, “We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

Signing statements have been used to “modify the meaning of laws,” whereas executive orders have been used to “(move) existing laws away from their original mandates.”

Isn’t that the same thing?

Where executive orders have been abused, Obama can invalidate them. But he doesn’t have to continue the trend by enacting his own abusive executive orders to reverse existing abusive executive orders.

In other words, getting rid of the policies that are “ideologically offensive” to certain groups of Americans doesn’t require instituting other policies that are ideologically offensive to other groups of Americans. Sure, to the victor go the spoils. But I thought Obama’s election was supposed to usher in an era in which we were above all that.

Obama has an opportunity with the executive orders issue to demonstrate that he’s interested in governing from the center. He can send a signal that he intends to leave the finer points of onerous policy to Congress—where they belong.

Will he?

Round up the GOP’s biggest egos ... It’s time for the annual conference of the Republican Governors Association!

(OK, so maybe Newt Gingrich is working on something else and won’t be there. But all the other biggest GOP egos will be.)

The RGA will convene this morning in Miami. Its annual conference is usually a hobnob-fest where those who fancy themselves president rub shoulders with one another. Occasionally, they’ll get together on a policy issue and give Congress a nudge, but it’s mostly just an opportunity for the executives to size each other up.

There will be several discussion sessions and a few presentations from notable conservatives like Bill Bennett. But the event drawing most of the attention is Thursday morning’s session on “The GOP in Transition.”

SIDEBAR: I guess that’s the going euphemism for, “Regrouping from getting our fannies handed to us last week.” END SIDEBAR

I will say that U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is a good pick for this particular session. Pence has made a name for himself by forging a bold path—not necessarily the path of the rest of the GOP—in Congress. Most notably, he’s broken with his leadership and with the president on a federal shield law for journalists. This is an important issue and one that Pence has pursued with equal parts passion and proficiency. (The bill passed the House, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has failed to move on the bill on his side of the Capitol. Now that President-elect Obama is on deck, maybe he can convince Reid to play ball.) In any event, Pence is a fresh face (I hate that term, by the way) who can speak with authority about the need for new ideas and new leadership within the Republican Party.

And when it comes to the GOP’s future, expect to hear lots of talk about reaching out to voters who aren’t old, white men in the South. Why? Out of the RGA’s 35 members and VIPs (page 4), only two are women.

That’s a problem.

SIDEBAR: Pet peeve alert!! You know, while the RGA is boning up on new ideas for running the country and outreach efforts to broaden its base, maybe it can brush up on its punctuation. Look at this statement. The spokesman’s name has an apostrophe in it, for Heaven’s sake: “...said RGA Executive Director Nick Ayer’s.” AAARRRRGH!! END SIDEBAR

The RGA’s slogan is “Good politics. Good policy.” Half and half. Not a bad split, especially for an organization of so many ambitious politicians, right?

But it doesn’t appear—at least, from the schedule, anyway—that any policy will be on tap at the RGA this week. The GOP bigwigs will hear about a breakdown of the 2008 election cycle (wait—that’s exactly what happened! Break down!); conservative pundits will lecture them about how they strayed from their roots and that’s what cost them with voters; pollster Frank Luntz will even regale them with his numbers (no word on whether he’ll bring those annoying dial-o-meters for the governors to assess his performance).

It’s going to be all politics, all the time—and that’s why the focus is on four or five attendees, in particular: Florida’s Charlie Crist, Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty, South Carolina’s Mark Sanford ... and a certain lady governor from outside the Lower 48.

That’s right. Don’t put away your Sarah Palin suit just yet, Tina Fey. The woman who makes moose chili on the weekends may not be able to see Russia from her house, but she’s definitely keeping an eye on Washington.

More on Palin later today. But keep in mind that when the Republican Party considers its future, these governors are the GOP’s Fab Five.

Get ready for your close-ups, governors ... It’s only 24 months before the presidential madness starts all over again. 

There is plenty of time for politics on other days of the year. Today, we celebrate Veterans’ Day, and this blog stands in honor of those who have served America in the Armed Forces.

This e-mail has made the rounds, but even if you’ve seen it a dozen times, it’s worth another read—especially on this day when our nation honors the men and women who have worn her uniform.

Think about the lives of these soldiers, and think about your life. Then thank them for protecting your life of peace and convenience—and for serving willingly so that you won’t have to serve unwillingly.

You stay up for 16 hours.
He stays up for days on end.

You take a warm shower to help you wake up.
He goes days or weeks without running water.

You complain of a “headache” and call in sick.
He gets shot at, as others are hit, and keeps moving forward.

You put on your anti war/don’t support the troops shirt and go meet up with your friends.
He still fights for your right to wear that shirt.

You make sure you’re cell phone is in your pocket.
He clutches the cross hanging on his chain next to his dog tags.

You talk trash on your “buddies” that aren’t with you.
He knows he may not see some of his buddies again.

You don’t feel like helping out your dad today, so you don’t.
He does what he is told.

You walk down the beach, staring at all the pretty girls.
He walks the streets, searching for insurgents and terrorists.

You complain about how hot it is.
He wears his heavy gear, not daring to take off his helmet to wipe his brow.

You go out to lunch, and complain because the restaurant got your order wrong.
He does not get to eat today.

Your maid makes your bed and washes your clothes.
He wears the same things for months, but he makes sure his weapons are clean.

You go to the mall and get your hair redone.
He doesn’t have time to brush his teeth today.

You are angry because your class ran 5 minutes over.
He is told he will be held an extra 2 months.

You call your girlfriend and set a date for that night.
He waits for the mail to see if there is a letter from home.

You hug and kiss your girlfriend, like you do everyday.
He holds his letter close and smells his love’s perfume.

You ditch class to go to a movie.
He goes where he is told.

You roll your eyes as a baby cries.
He gets a letter with pictures of his new child and wonders if they’ll ever meet.

You criticize your government and say that war never solves anything.
He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own government and remembers why he is fighting.

You hear the jokes about the war and make fun of the men like him.
He hears the gun fire and bombs.

You see only what the media wants you to see.
He sees the bodies lying around him.

You are asked to go to the store by your parents; you don’t.
He does what he is told.

You stay at home and watch TV.
He takes whatever time he is given to call and write home, sleep, and eat.

You crawl into your bed, with down pillows, and try to get comfortable.
He crawls under a tank for shade and a five-minute nap, only to be awakened by gun fire.

You sit there and judge him, saying the world is a worse place because of men like him.
If only there were more men like him.

You gripe at your parents for not buying your favorite snack.
He’s just happy to get some packages of Kool-Aid and a bag of chips.

You get mad when you have to share your favorite treat with a younger sibling.
He shares what little bit of anything he has with the men around him.

To everyone who has served and is serving today, thank you. 

I know you’re starting to hear about the demands being made by the Big Three automakers to be included in the not-a-bailout deal.

No? Well, click here for a primer. (Note that in addition to the chief executives of the Big Three, there was one other super-important guy in the meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers union. Make of that what you will; I’m sure the union’s positions on benefits and wa