This is an excellent example of a coach trying to be too involved in the game. There are 11 players out on the field. The head coach is not one of them. Let them play.

I was going to advocate for the NFL to restore the exclusive privilege of calling time-outs to the players on the field. But upon further review it is too much fun watching fools like Belichick make asses of themselves.

Whatever they post on Nate Silver's site, is my prediction. That site is fantastic. I've learned a lot about the art of polling since I've started reading it.

So far, they have Obama winning 340 electoral votes as the most likely outcome. Why not? It would be sweet.

Things I'm not going to miss:

• Republican cries of "Socialism" and their whining about "spreading the wealth". Not that it's going to happen, but what the f*&^ is wrong with that? Especially since they've been shamelessly engaged in wealth redistribution themselves over the years; just the wrong way.
• John McCain's hand-waving explanations about "Fanny and Freddie" being the cause of the economic mess. What an ignorant dolt.
• Joe the Plumber. As Jon Stewart put it: "Is McCain-Palin looking to rule us in the Middle Ages? Reginald the Smith! McCain-Palin: Building a bridge to the 13th Century!"
• Wasilla
• This whole "ACORN is destroying the fabric of democracy” thing. What gall.

The list could go on and on.

In the 16 years I've lived in our small rural county (pop. ~ 8K) I've never had to wait for more than 10 minutes to vote. Ever. Today's wait? 1 hour.

I don't know what to read into this, since this state is projected to go McCain by 9 percentage points. But one can only welcome this level of participation.

I don't have TV, but I want to watch the wake. Do they have a streaming feed on the Web?

Thanks.

Never mind, thanks.

It was never really in the cards that Dems would get 60 Senate seats. And even if they did they would have to have had strict party discipline to prevent blue dogs from joining the Rs on some measure or another. So what this means is that the Senate leadership will have to earn their keep. Nothing wrong with that. Consider also that having exactly 60 would mean that Lieberman would wield inordinate influence. That is not to be, which is also a good thing.

That the party did not do as well as they thought in the House is a result of the very low approval ratings of Congress. That is the fault of a timid House leadership. Democrats were put in the majority in '06 to bring about change. Not only did they utterly fail to end the war and oppose Bush vigorously, they actually colluded with this most unpopular president in perpetuating the war and curtailing our rights. Will they learn the lesson? I doubt it.

If the Democrats cannot advance their agenda with the healthy majorities they now hold then they are incompetent fools and all this will be for nothing.

while Harry Reid emphasizes that Democrats have received no mandate from the election.

Really? Just what is a mandate, then? Any winning margin for Republicans, even the slimmest one?

I'd like to see the Democrats in the Senate ditch Harry Reid. Here is where Hillary could make herself useful. Perhaps she could lead an effort to have herself voted Majority Leader. Don't know if it is feasible though.

As for repealing DOMA, so much must be undone that the act repealing DOMA could be included in a much larger omnibus bill repealing some of the most heinous Bush era legislation, thus providing political cover, if they think they need it.

...is a winner, for bucking his party's voter suppression tactics and actually helping people vote in Florida.

It means the world is ready to follow if America is ready to lead.

-- Mark Leon Goldberg, Undispatch.com

Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano, on said leadership (Interview with Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! Nov. 5, 2008):

Yes, yes. I’m worried about the repetition of this dangerous, toxic word, “leadership.” I have heard this word said by Obama and also by McCain, and I usually hear it with a dangerous frequency in all the—in almost all the politicians in the United States, and about Latin America, it’s usual to say, “We should recover our leadership in Latin America.” We don’t need any foreign leadership. Let it be. Let reality be as it wants to be, with no ruling state deciding the destiny of other countries. Please, no more. Stop with this tradition of the messianic mission of, you know, saving the world. No, it has been terrible during so many years, even centuries. No. Perhaps this crisis, this present crisis, so strong and terrible, may give something like a violent shower of realism and humility to this new government, who is beginning now—which is beginning now.

Amen.

I enjoyed Digby's post. Right on. There are problem with this, though. First, we need to combat this delusional "Commander-in-Chief" fetish that Glenn so rightly decries. Commanders-in-Chief do rule by fiat. Politicians in real democracies cannot. They must have political cover. That brings us to the second problem: progressives have virtually no infrastructure and not permanent power base, whereas the establishment Right has money and power in abundance. In the past trade unions spearheaded progressive activism. But today trade unions are a mere shell of what they used to be. I would therefore urge that one of our fist priorities in this first Obama term must be to get pro-labor and pro-union laws passed. This can be sold as being essential to an economic recovery package. With 200,000 jobs a month being lost, this ought not to be a tough sell.

Isn't that what Hannah Arendt was criticizing when she coined the term "the Banality of Evil"?