Will Biden endorse?

At this point, most endorsements are not about votes: they're about sending a signal to the other superdelegates that it's time to rally around the candidate who will finish with the most pledged delegates, the most states, and probably the most votes. This was clearly the point of Richardson's endorsement.

The Republican debate reminded the world again last night the way in which 24 has helped to poison the political culture of this country.

At one point, the candidates were asked how they'd respond to an absurd hypothetical situation striaght from the show. Tom Tancredo got the point (and the applause): "We need Jack Bauer," he said.

Jack Bauer is a torturer-- perhaps the most popular torturer in the history of American popular culturer. For details, you can check out this video or this article, both from Jane Mayer and The New Yorker.

I support Obama for president, and I was a little disappointed by his speech to an AIPAC crowd a couple of weeks ago-- not because of what he did say, but because of what he didn't say. He did not, on that occasion, judging from the reports I read, say much about the Palestinians. Obama had been sympathetic to the situation of Palestinians in the past, and this seemed like a missed opportunity.

Last night Obama made up for it.

I have heard some intelligent people say they're inclined not to vote for Obama because we live in a racist country, and he can't get elected. Now, I have some problems with the whole "electability" strategy, but I don't reject that line of thinking out of hand. There are probably times when it makes sense to be strategic as a voter in that way, though I think it's a risky proposition generally, and often flawed as an approach.

But with this specific line of thinking-- "you shouldn't support Obama because others are racist"-- I would go a step further: It is, effectively, complicit with racism. It is to accept racism, rather than to fight against it.

I haven't seen any diaries about Obama's current fundraising effort, in which the Senator is encouraging supporters to donate for the first time or to match the donations of other first time contributors. In the latter case, new donors see the handle and hometown of the person who has matched their donations-- a clever way of pushing supporters to network and create relationships.

I'm sure there are many others-- future national spokesmen (and women), possible POTUS and VP picks. So who are the best of the lot? Who's overlooked? I've listed a few below, but I know it's an inadequate list.

Nice to see how much deeper the Democratic bench is now than the Republican.

Here's the kicker: "in race after race, [the Democratic victory] actually represents the apotheosis of forces Emanuel has doubted all long: the netroots."

Here's the link:

http://www.tnr.com/...

The poll is a simple Yes or No. I explain the idea behind it in the extended entry.

http://www.slate.com/id/2109827/

Noah's point is that the GOP isn't hammering Specter because he's pro-choice. They're hammering him because he isn't sufficiently pro-economic-crisis.

Just another example of the Republican Party's real interests. Which suggests another way of weakening the GOP's "Values" coalition: just demonstrate their real interests. Call them on their bluff. Get the fundies to vote Constitution Party next time (or not vote at all).

Schumer will get a position on the Finance Committee and will head the DSSC. Spitzer is the likely nominee for governor in 2006.

Schumer says he had no eye on the state house, but he advertised a lot in New York during his recent re-election campaign, even though he was cruising to victory (won by 50+, I believe).

Any thoughts on how he'll do with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committe?

And how about Spitzer? Future president?

And who might that governor be? (As a corollary, should Mark Warner really run for Senate in 2006? And is he charismatically challenged?)

(I assume the standard reasons given for the Governor's Advantage (TM) are familiar enough around here-- executive experience, no congressional voting record, "outsider" image, local touch-- that a parenthetical mention will do.)

So here's one attempt to boil the two parties down to their respective essences. In short, the Democrats are the party of freedom and opportunity. (I know that sounds like a meaningless platitude, but trust me, I mean something specific.) It's a message that can have real content and at the same time rise above Us vs. Them and identity politics.

See what I mean below.

Does anyone know here about the possibility that either of these two (or anyone else-- perhaps in the House as well, though I imagine that's likely) would switch parties? How does this happen? When would it happen? Would the Democrats have to offer Committee seats? Could they?

Any information will be greatly appreciated.

"I also have a substantive recommendation to the Blue states: Do all that you can to shut off the spigots. Completely. Shut it down. All of it. No more sucking on the government's teat for the Red states. Transform the rhetoric of your Republican brothers into practice: Slash federal spending (is that still a Republican position?). Wipe out the farm subsidies. Eradicate all block grants to the states. End the transfer of thirteen cents out of every Blue State Tax Dollar to the Red states (call it "Real Welfare Reform".) Replace every dollar of reduced federal spending with a dollar of in-state spending."

Previous diary here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/142836/638

Polling links below the fold.

Get this up on the main page! Dick Cheney is a liar, and we can stick the charge to him on a silly, but eminently get-able fact.

PS. It'd be nice if we had a pic from the Senate floor. But this will do for now.

"You can only have so much of a plan-- a framework, basically," Kerry should say. "Why? Because the situation is not entirely predictable. If it was simple as just writing a few things down, maybe this administration could have gotten it done. But it's also about making decisions as situations arise, like whether or not to go into Falluja, for instance, or how to deal with Moktada Al Sadr. Every analyst of what's going on in Iraq says this president made the wrong decisions in those cases. And, quite frankly, we can't afford any more mistakes. We can't trust the man who has failed to do the job. We need new leadership that will make the right decisions as these sitations arise. I've learned how to make those decisions as a soldier, as a prosecutor, and as a senator. I will make them as president of the United States, and we will restore stability to Iraq, and make America and the world safer."

The Bush campaign knows that that Kerry will make this point again tonight. And they might just play defense on the issue, and have Bush trot out his worn-out slogans.

Or, they could have Bush state right at the beginning that things are not going well, and somehow spin that in his direction-- by saying, for example, that we need to be firm, not change horses, etc.

This would be the more risky, and possibly more rewarding maneuver. Will they go for it? How will Kerry respond, if so (I hope he has something prepared for such an occurence)?

Whatever happens, I'm glad Kerry gets the first question.