I stopped reading at about page 13, but I see a trend.

A whole bunch of people are railing that Obama since he is bringing on Clinton people for the transition and in some cases, for his future administration.

What's funniest about this, a couple of these posters were supposedly strong Hillary Clinton supporters. I guess they thought she would eschew any support from people that used to work with her husband and in many cases, with herself.

A transition of power (especially one that is being done in the middle of a financial crisis and two wars) needs to be done smoothly. It needs to be done professionally. If you look back at the beginning of Bill Clinton's first term, one of the biggest (but understandable) mistakes was the transition that was not smooth.

I give Obama a tip of the hat for recognizing that there are some Democrats out there that are experienced and capable...even if they once worked with Clinton. Since when has that been a problem for Dems? That's right, it isn't a problem for real Dems.

There may be some that don't like Rahm. So be it, it does look like Obama and the Clinton's both go back with the guy. But Leon Podesta is there as an administrative brain, and a temporary one at that. I applaud that his talents are being utilized.

How many "Independents" or others have postions of leadership in the Republican Party?

Just curious.

What's guaranteed to push Lieberman into the Rep camp is stripping him of his chairmanship.

And what will be Lieberman's reward there? McConnell says he'd welcome him, but has nothing to offer.

Again, McConnell has nothing to offer Lieberman. McConnell is not going to strip a senior Republican of his position to reward Lieberman. So instead, Lieberman would be a junior guy with no seniority. It's not like Lieberman's going to change the balance of power, unlike Jefford did years ago.

Lieberman can keep some symbolic position (VA chair) but little power chair. He can stay in the majority caucus (always more fun that being in the minority)...but he shouldn't be one of the most powerful players in a party he campaigned actively against.

At the risk of repeating myself, the trouble with your idea is that will be too late to fire Joe later.

If Joe Lieberman all of a sudden decides to start an Obama witchhunt (which he has the power to do), if he is fired after that, it looks like the Dems are trying to hide something.

There have been majore revisions to the way unemployment is tallied since the 80's.

From what I understand, if unemployment were tallied the way it was during the Reagan years, our unemployment rate a year ago would have been closer to 10%. God knows what it would be now.

This change is a bipartisan change...along with Bush's economy, it made the Clinton economy look better also.

Lieberman did not deem anything Bush did as worthy of investigation. Not a dmaned thing, including the Katrina response that Lieberman said would be investigated.

If Lieberman starts going on witch hunts after Obama on Day 1 (and he has proven that his word cannot</> be trusted) it will be next to impossible to remove him from his spot. It would look too much like retribution, an Archibald Cox moment politically. A "What's Obama afraid of..." deal, instead of recognition that Lieberman actively campaigned against a Dem majority.

Calvert(R) vs. Hedrick (D)

Calvert has declared victory, but Riverside County still has about 40,000 uncounted votes. Calvert was ahead solidly in the Orange County part of his district, but was behind in the Riverside portion, the largest part of CA-44.

There is still hope for Hedrick.

Great point. We can't criticize because we are at war. We can't criticize because we can't undermine our team before the election, it doesn't matter the year, we can't criticize because we don't have a filibuster proof majority, etc.

I think the major failing of the RW this year was the echo chamber, the bubble they built for themselves, the bubble that still tells them that Palin would be the best. candidate. evah.

We don't need to repeat that mistake and ignore what doesn't reinforce our "team's" position.

And Reality Kid, thanks for the link to the Chris Floyd article. It was a good one, even if it dared criticize my preferred candidate.

You know, I've been called an Obamamaniac, an Obamabot, a messiah worshipper, etc. simply for not supporting McCain, and after my primary, eventually supporting Obama.

It appears they really do exist, even if the term is grossly overused...kind of like socialist, marxist, etc.

@nob, the reason that the Dems always pick up votes in these kind of counts and recounts (btw, it's happening in Repub controlled states, too, look to Alaska) is because the places that tend to be understaffed are the poorer, more populous areas.

Trust me, there were no 5 hour lines to vote in Newport Beach, CA, even if they had record turnout. The same is true in wealthier suburbs across the country.

You move to the inner city, and combine that with record turnout and the system is not set up to count the votes in a timely manner. Add to that the disproportionate use of provisional ballots that need to be verified (and they are verified, so it's time consuming) you get delayed results.

I also am wondering why mistakes (purges, machine vote switching, long poll lines, equipment failures) always seem to favor Republicans.

Sorry, you don't even get to complain about Florida being screwed over, that mantle was taken by another recent poster here that was ranting about the far left and gays.

The same test "What if Bush did it" should be applied to Republican critics who are now comparing the Peace Corps and the AmericCorps to a new Nazi/Marxist state. (No one needs to remind me that they are the opposite sides of the spectrum...I'm talking about Republican critics)