More premature criticism of Obama just over a week after he won and more than two months before he takes office.

It WAS Obama personally that Leiberman attacked on the campaign trail, so his position should probably be taken into consideration by the Senate. Ultimately the decision lies with with the next Senate Democratic Caucus, but Obama's opinion being a factor in their decision is not a threat to the Constitution.

As to executive orders, Bush has abused them so badly that Obama will have to use them to undo some of the most damaging aspects of 8 years of Bush rule. Obama will probably work with Congress to pass much of his agenda, but there are many changes that he can make that lie firmly within the Executive Branch's domain. If his executive orders are used primarily to overturn the Bush orders that were an abuse of power, there is no issue. If he starts issuing executive orders that are unrelelated to the Bush orders and encroach on the powers of Congress, write this kind of article then. Democrats seem determined to tear Obama down before he even takes office.

Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?

I am not sure that it would the best choice, but it would certainly be an acceptable one. She would probably be 4th on my list of potentials.

The other question is, is it a good choice for her? I think that she could be better off in the Senate, but what are her ambitions? her biggest issues are healthcare and children and Secretary of State would move her away from her life's work, albeit in a bold new direction.

She wouldn't be my fist choice, but I am torn as to whether she is the right choice for the job and whether the job is the right choice for her.

I have never been a fan of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid. Today just added to the list of reason's why. Most items on the list boil down to the simple fact that he is spineless.

The Leiberman situation was NOT about him supporting John McCain, as some media outlets are spinning it. Leiberman attacked the Democratic Presidential nominee. He also stumped for Reublicans running for the SENATE. Which means that he actively tried to shrink the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. To give him a slap on the wrist for that is inexcusable.

So what if he bolted to the other side? Did Reid think that Leiberman would start voting on party lines if he switched sides? Bolting to the Republicans would have been political death for Leiberman, but a trivial annoyance for the Democrats. They had the upper hand once again and threw in the towel before the first punch was thrown.

Why was it so important to keep Leiberman in the caucus? 57, 58, or 60 votes wouldn't change anything from a procedural standpoint. Leiberman is an Independent who is going to vote how he is going to vote regardless of how the caucus tries to persude him. That would be equally true if he were caucusing with the Republicans.

If he started voting straight Republican, he would be on his way out the door. Keeping him in the caucus was meaningless in practical terms and sends the message that victory aside, the Democrats are still spineless.

It isn't fair to blame Obama. As President-elect, he HAS to reach out to everyone who will be in the next Congress. This was on Harry Reid, who has been nothing short of an utter failure as Senate Majority Leader. It is time for HIM to go.

The House of Representatives should have made it their top priority after the election to begin impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney. Yes, he would leave office before they could actually impeach him, but he would have been prohibited from pardoning anyone for the role they played in any area related to the Articles of Impeachment.

This would have been an easy sell to the American people if they explained what they were doing and why they were doing it (to ensure that Bush can't use pardons to keep Americans from finding out the truth behind the crimes of the Bush White House). The depths of depravity of teh Bush team may never be fully known because Bush could easily pardon his entire staff.

The pardon provision of the Constitution has been interpreted as an almost limitless power. Impeachment is the only exception. I don't think the founding fathers ever really expected an administration so corrupt could possibly be coupled with a Congress so spineless.

Who might he pardon? Almost anyone. Who should be prosected to the maximum extent of the law? Anyone he doesn't. A pardon may keep Gonzales out of jail, but it can't keep him off the witness stand in the trial of anyone Bush overlooks (hopefully himself and Cheney).