When Obama's economic team rejects Rubin's deficit-hawkery in favor of heavy stimulus and deficit spending, and rejects his deregulating ideology in favor of re-regulating, isn't that a good thing?

By the way: Brad DeLong rips apart John Judis, and heavily praises Christina Romer (and the rest of Obama's econ team, just as Roubini has done).

The praise of Romer:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/11/talking-points.html

The evisceration of Judis:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/11/new-republic--1.html

By the way: Notice that most of the crowd picking on Obama's people are the sort of folk for whom Paul Wellstone and Teddy Kennedy would be fascist insects? Just sayin'.

The praise of Romer:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/11/talking-points.html

The evisceration of Judis:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/11/new-republic--1.html

By the way: Notice that most of the crowd picking on Obama's people are the sort of folk for whom Paul Wellstone and Teddy Kennedy would be fascist insects? Just sayin'.

Have you done a bar exam lately? Or applied for a job at any major university or corporate entity within, say, the past decade? Employers regularly Google their employees' names, boyo, whether you like it or not.

These questions aren't at all unusual for anyone seeking a job above that of fry cook. It says something about the limited (or lower-level) job experience of the author and many of his readers that he thinks that this is at all new or unusual.

Let's be real. Things that would be excused or ignored in a Republican administration are going to be spotlighted in a Democratic one. In fact, they will invent stuff to freak out over, just as they did with Clinton and Whitewater, or Gore and pretty much everything.

Look at how they tried to play the guilt-by-extremely-tenuous-association game already with Obama over Bill Ayers (hey, if associating with reformed political terrorists is bad then all righties must spurn Chuck Colson now and forever) and even Louis Farrakhan, a guy who Obama never met but who Obama was expected to ritually denounce in a classic HUAC-style inquisitorial setup courtesy of Saint Tim the Russert, Who We Must Never Criticize. Look at how they spent weeks freaking out over Jeremiah Wright and barely noticed things such as John McCain's putting his own wife Cindy in a rather humiliating and degrading "Miss Buffalo Chip" contest at Sturgis (how demeaning? Google "bite the weenie" for an example of the things Miss Buffalo Chip contestants are supposed to endure). They will pump up the volume once he's sworn in, trust me.

Can you receive physical items via e-mail? That's one big difference between e-mail and a P.O. Box, for starters. (And I personally wouldn't mind if my spouse got a separate P.O. Box for all the books and bike gear he orders -- it would mean we wouldn't need to go running across town all the time to DHL or UPS or other express-mail places.)

My spouse and have had separate e-mail accounts from the beginning. I don't read his e-mail and am not especially interested in reading his e-mail.

John Lott is such a tool that he makes up female sockpuppets to hide behind when he ventures into chat rooms to defend his bogus statistics. Google "Mary Rosh" and have a giggle.

It says something about the sleaziness of the Republicans that they're using this clown.

The first time Prop 8 -- as the Knight Initiative -- came up for a vote in 2000, it passed by a crushingly large twenty-four-point margin, 62% to 38%.

Eight years later, the margin of victory shrunk from twenty-four points to a bare four points: 52% to 48%. This despite five months and forty million dollars' worth of cleverly-crafted ads by the Mormons that hijacked the language of the civil rights movement, which is ironic considering that anti-black racism is not just Mormon custom, but Mormon doctrine: http://www.i4m.com/think/history/mormon_racism.htm. (This is one reason why, back in the late 1990s, the LDS chose to have the Roman Catholic Church be the public face for their cause: http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7396)

The No on 8 folks have set up the groundwork for another initiative, one undoing Prop 8. Exposing the role of the racist LDS in leading the anti-gay-marriage troops will go a long way to making this happen, and in considerably less than eight years' time.

Yeah, it won, BUT: It was by a far smaller margin, 52% to 48%, than it did when it was the Knight Initiative in 2000 (when it won 62% to 38%).

Got that? In the space of eight years, despite five months and forty million dollars of Yes on 8 ads, and a terribly disorganized anti-8 mobilization and GOTV effort (San Francisco only had 50% turnout, while LA had 82%), the margin of support for this anti-gay-marriage measure was slashed by 80%.

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/1491

Now, if the No on 8 folks can keep hammering away with the methodical intensity of the Mormons and RCCs backing the measure, a counter-measure repealing it could pass in far less time than eight years. Constantly informing nonwhite voters that the LDS, which has anti-black bigotry written into its scriptures, is the power behind the Prop 8 drive -- the LDSers deliberately have since 1997 had their partners in antigay actions, the Catholic Church, be the public face of their antigay movement for this reason (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/3/15369/3779?detail=f) -- would be rather effective to aid in this end.

When the original of Prop 8, the Knight Initiative, passed in 2000, it was by a huge, twenty-four-point margin, 62% to 38%.

Now, even with forty million bucks in ads over five months, the margin of victory shrank to four points: 52% to 48%.

And that was with a rather disorganized GOTV effort on the No on 8 part (only 50% turnout in San Francisco? When LA mustered 82%? Ai-yi-yi!).

Keep up the fight -- it's shifting in the good guy's favor:

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/1491