Absolutely, let Palin run in 2012.

In a few weeks, as the right wing recovers from the stunning blow it has received, we'll be hearing all about how this wasn't really the death of conservatism, that Obama got lucky that there was a financial crisis right before the election, that this or that minor misstep is what made the difference... and that if the Republicans ran the same campaign and the same candidates again, they would win.

Let Palin run against in Obama in 2012 and get trounced so they will know the first time wasn't a fluke. Might have to take her down three or four times, like the Terminator or the monster in Alien.

I'm sorry... everybody is thrilled that Obama won and so am I.

But in four years, many people will feel differently. Obama will not have made gasoline be cheap again--in fact, global peak oil means that fuel prices will likely be even higher. (You still think that mass automobile use can continue under some circumstances. You have another think coming.)

More broadly, the overall shitstorm that Bush and co. have started may be beyond even the Big O's ability to fix or control.

And in a few years, a lot of people are going to be so pissed off that they will forget who started it, and will not care that things would have been much, much worse without Obama. The Limbaughs and the O'Reillys will play on that lack of memory and encourage everyone to forget what a train wreck Palin was. The people who have played on Americans' worst instincts have not gone away.

So we are not out of the woods and you are not off the hook. Do not forget. By the hideous miscalculations of the past eight years, you have waived your right to be forgetful. Now you are just like any other country: you have horrible dark shit in your modern past that must remind you of what you are capable of when you become complacent. You have begun to earn the right to be proud again but you can backslide in a moment.

Never forget. Never EVER EVER EVER forget. EVER! And if that means instituting a national holiday every November 5th--"Dodged A Bullet Day"--on which people get together and retell tales of the woman who almost became vice-president--then so be it.

that the solution involves some kind of high-tech car. I can understand why this would be part of his solution.

But hybrid cars are at best a stopgap solution--something to put autoworkers to work and increase fleet efficiency and show everyone that Something Is Happening.

So while he does that, I hope some serious money will also go into rebuilding the passenger rail network. That way, in ten years, when it is painfully obvious that cars are not going to keep running under ANY circumstances, the replacement infrastructure will have been put into place.

but the Democrats ARE center-right. There is no left-wing presence in the U.S. government. There's center-right and farther-right.

America's--even blue-state America's--attitudes towards public schooling, health care, labour protection, environmental standards are well to the right of the rest of the developed world's.

You will need passenger rail. You will need it soon. Here you have an industry that has no future and no money and no clout and you need to put it to work doing something sane.

First, if you're going to get rid of him, now's the time. Dems have a majority and a mandate but not a filibuster-proof majority. The difference between 60 and 59 is much more than the difference between 58 and 57.

Second, you need to send a message. The thing that has hampered Democrats for the past umpteen years is their unwillingness to take a stand and their willingness to compromise with people who were being completely unreasonable.

Third, bear in mind that being chairman of the Homeland Security committee is one of those things that someday goes on your resume when you're running for President. Especially important for a Democrat to have that tough-on-national-security cred. I don't think Joe will ever be a serious contender for that role but someone else in the Democratic caucus will. Barack Obama won't be president forever. Imagine that in 2012, it comes down to a close race between the Republican and some Democrat who was pretty good... but the Republican squeaks out a win because the Democrat "lacks national security experience." Think about that.

In other words, give that chairmanship to one of your rising stars, someone who has a future with the party. Don't waste it on Joe.

And by the way, it's not about revenge. It's about building a strong party in the long run. Joe can have a chairmanship, but make it something less important. (Might be more effective that way, i.e. damning with faint praise.) Send him the message that he's no longer indispensable, and that even if he might become so in the future again, we're not willing to play pattycake in the hopes of keeping in his good graces. Frankly, the Democrats have given Joe everything (including a chance to screw up the 2000 election!) and he's not reciprocated. Enough already!