February 24: VwV was launched in February of 2008 and one of our first posts was titled, “After Fidel, Cuban bloggers discuss US candidates.” The post compiled Cuban bloggers thoughts on what the new U.S. president would do with the new leader of Cuba and so Obama’s infamous “without pre-conditions” line began, which haunted him throughout the campaign.

March 21: After videos of Obama’s reverend were brought to the public, the now President-elect delivered, arguably, one of the most memorable speeches in history on racism. VwV’s post, “World moved by Obama’s speech on race,” highlights what bloggers throughout the world had to say after hearing Obama’s thoughts on race.

April 17: As the first African-American president of the U.S., it was crucial for VwV to get the thoughts of African bloggers on Obama. In the post titled, “A letter from Africa,” bloggers throughout the large continent shared their opinions on the then, Democratic contender for nomination.

June 9: As America’s summer heated up, so did the presidential campaign but throughout the world. In the post, “Global: The world has a say!” VwV’s editor compiled a list of Web sites that allowed non-Americans to vote who they think is best for the states.

June 19: The rapid growth of technology played a major role in the 21st century presidential campaign. In the post, “Global: I’m voting Republican” covers what world bloggers thought about a controversial film by Charlie Steak.

August 29: This was the day the world was introduced to Sarah Palin – the governor of the U.S. state closest to Russia and John McCain’s Republican running mate. Without much information about the Republican VP pick, bloggers simply commented about McCain’s pick being a woman as compiled in the post, “The world reacts to Sarah Palin’s VP nomination.”

October 10: Race was not only prevalent on the Democratic campaign trail but also on the Republican, as rallies became heated. The post, “Racism on the Republican Trail?” includes just a few of the comments that were fluttering through the blogosphere about remarks made during Republican rallies.

October 24: The rise of technology returns with the post, “Dear American Voter: an international persepective.” The post covers Link TV’s project that allowed non-Americans to send letters to American voters via videos. The post includes just some of the prevalent thoughts of the voices without votes.

November 4: Mainstream media outlets weren't the only ones covering “breaking news.” As soon as word got out that Dixville, New Hampshire, was the first county to close their polls and count their votes, the blogosphere was on it. This post, “Dixville notch makes global blogosphere history” quotes the excitement of some bloggers and skepticism of others.

November 9: And, after it was all said and done…bloggers began to look back and analyze how Obama ran a successful campaign. In the post, “Social media and the making of the president,” analyses were offered by bloggers in three different countries of how social media played such a major factor in the campaign.

On the lighter side of the campaign, our silliest moments include: Tina Fey as Sarah Palin; Sarah Palin’s conversation with “Sarkozy;” And, Joe the unlicensed plumber.

2. Joe Biden

3. Colin Powell

Apart from all being prominent American male political figures, that is. And all being white (like Stephen Colbert, I don’t see colour).

Give up?

They’ve all got a great track record on bipartisanship. Well, a good enough track record to be honoured by Our New Favourite President on the eve of his inauguration:

“President-elect Obama to Host Bipartisan Dinners Honoring McCain, Powell and Biden

Dinners on Eve of Inauguration to Highlight Commitment to Bipartisan Cooperation and Accomplishment

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, as part of an Inauguration for all Americans, the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee announced a series of bipartisan dinners to take place on Monday, January 19^th, the eve of Inauguration Day.

Each of the three dinners will honor an American whose lifetime of public service has been enhanced by a dedication to bipartisan achievement: Senator John McCain, General Colin L. Powell, USA (Ret.), and Vice President-elect Joe Biden.  Attending will be leaders in Congress from both sides of the aisle and Americans from across the country of both parties.

On the eve of an historic transfer of power, the dinners serve to highlight President-elect Obama’s commitment to renewing America’s promise via bipartisan accomplishment.

“In these times of great challenge and great change, leadership requires rising above the same old narrow partisanship,” said President-elect Obama.  “Each of these distinguished Americans has spent his life in service to his country, at each and every moment placing the interests of America before issues of political party.  That is precisely the spirit of common purpose we need as we begin the work ahead.”

The dinners will take place at the National Building Museum, Union Station and the Hilton Washington.”

There are of course those who would like to see Christian voters marginalized as a voting force. 

Democrats like the idea because it helps them win elections.  Fiscally conservative Republicans wish the religious right didn’t have so much say in the Republican party.  And many liberals reject Christianity and resent its influence in the country. 

That’s a lot of opposition.  The marginalizing of Christian voters may happen in the course of time if the decades-old trend of it’s-all-about-me social philosophy continues to erode traditional national beliefs away.  Dreher says that doesn’t have to be so:

Today, the greatest threats to conservative interests come not from the Soviet Union or high taxes, but from too much individual freedom. Look around you: Americans have been poor stewards of our economic liberty, owing to cultural values that celebrate unfettered materialism. Our families and communities have fragmented, in part because we have embraced an ethic of extreme individualism. Climate change and a peak in oil production threaten our future because we have been irresponsible caretakers of the natural world and its resources. At best, the religious right stood ineffectively against these trends. At worst, we preached them, mistaking consumerism for conservatism.

All political problems, traditional conservatism teaches, are ultimately religious problems because they result from disordered souls. In the era now dawning, Americans will learn again to live within limits — and together. Religious conservatives are philosophically positioned to lead the way, but we can’t do it by pouring new wine into old skins.

It’s worth noting that the extreme individualism that Dreher decries is the problem not because of the fact of individual freedom itself but rather because of the choices that individuals make with that freedom.  This contrary to the view of many religious fundamentalists of the Islamic and Christian faiths.

We have the God-given right to make our own decisions, in life and in the voting booth.  On this point, Dreher notes a truth that many conservative candidates don’t always consider when banking on Christians’ votes:

…we mustn’t err as our elders did, assuming that the culture will improve if we elect more Republicans.

Americans of all political and religious backgrounds have been ill-served by the current batch of Republicans, something social conservatives should bear in mind when choosing the next Republican party lineup. 

Like it or not, Christian voters will have a loud voice in the Republican coalition for years to come and deservedly so.  Both the origins of the United States and current demographics indicate that their views deserve to be be heavily represented in our republican government.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

GrodsCorp do not tolerate fools gladly, especially conservative ones. You could even say they’re unforgiving. They certainly don't forget. They’ve put together a collection of bloggers who called it for McCain, with their way-out predictions laid bare:

The US election came and went, and now it’s time to laugh ourselves stupid at those who predicted an overwhelming win for McCain.
Owned. Every last one.
Goodness! There’s skullduggery afoot!

These dismal failures haven’t stopped the political soothsayers who fancy themselves as futurologists. John Passant of En Passant is a self-styled socialist who is “a liberationist - I believe in Marx’s idea of the self-emancipation of the working class.” His take on the election is couched in terms of old-fashioned class warfare:

I put Barack Obama’s victory down to one thing - class. Working people are scared. Scared for their jobs. Scared for their families. Scared for the future.

US workers have had 16 years of rule for the rich from Clinton and Bush. They’ve had eight years of foreign adventures which are or will be defeats.

The wages of low and middle income earners have not increased in real terms over the past 8 years. The minimum wage has fallen. The reward for all this sacrifice - bailouts for the fat cats on Wall Street and more sacrifices for workers on Main Street.

…Obama will not be able to deliver substantive change because to do so would require a challenge to the very structures of US capitalism.
All change at Obama station?

Homepage Daily brings us a video of a panel discussion - Obama: What Can We Expect?

Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Leigh Sales recently chaired a panel at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre: David Brady (Stanford University), Michael Parks (former editor of the Los Angeles Times) and Geoffrey Garrett (US Studies Centre).

From Michael Parks:

Nothing is going to happen in international relations and foreign policy, nothing is going to happen well, without getting the economy right.

From David Bradbury:

Of course he’s going to fail on foreign policy… European and Australian expectations are way too high.

From Geoffrey Garrett:

There is something to be said for the amount of political capital that Obama comes in with… Extraordinary times sometimes generate extraordinary leadership… I wouldn’t rule success out but it would be naïve to underestimate the magnitude of the challenges he is going to inherit.

Parts 1 and 2 of this program are available through Slow TV on The Online Monthly

But most importantly, in my opinion, the system reduces the diverse political landscape of the country into monochrome blocks. It creates the crippling sense of a "red state" vs "blue state" divide. If a popular vote was in place, this perception would not have room to flourish. As the editorial points out, over 40% of voters in deep red Alabama cast their ballot for Obama, while 4.5 million Californians voted for McCain (equivalent to the number of votes the Republican got in Texas). If Obama is serious about transcending red-blue fissures, he should welcome the burgeoning national movement for the popular vote.

To hear NPR’s Peter Overby tell it, Ayers is just a mild mannered, much revered professor of education from Chicago who is bemused that the old fogies keep remembering his wild college days.  The piece cast Ayers as a successful career educator, who was, he implies, wrongly vilified by the McCain-Palin campaign.  In fact, according to NPR, Ayers is a very popular educator who has successfully helped change education by focusing on children’s creative energy.  So popular that the bookstore where Professor Ayers’ book signing and talk was scheduled to be held was too small, so a local church offered space (sanctuary?) for the event.  The book store was well stocked with all of Ayers’ books on education, but had, they confessed to NPR, neglected to carry Ayers’ radical autobiography.

So did the thorough-going NPR investigative reporter ask any pointed questions about Ayers’ past?  Not really.  Just noted that the Republicans seem unhappy that Ayers wont’ apologize for his bad behavior.  And to hear NPR tell it, it’s all here say anyhow, and Ayers says he’s sorry they don’t like him.  See, he’s just a great guy, an educator, promoting the creative process.

Which sounds great.  A good investigative reporter might have chosen to ignore the oft-repeated mad bomber angle, and look at Professor Ayers’ career and its results.  Except NPR really doesn’t seem to understand what investigative reporting involves.  Asking questions.  Checking up on how Ayers’ educational policy has been received.  How well it has succeeded in improving public school graduation rates.  Perhaps how well Ayers’ policies worked in Chicago, where he’s been particularly active.  Which might be of interest to listeners since both Ayers and the President Elect were active in the Chicago Annenberg Project.  How the Washington DC schools think Ayers’ policies would work in their classrooms, if they aren’t using them already.  Simple questions like those could probably have been researched in 45 minutes of work on a telephone if Mr. Overby can’t get around to see everyone in person.

You see, if someone at NPR had bothered to make a few phone calls, let alone visit Washington DC public schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, they might have had some more interesting questions to ask Professor Ayers.  For instance, why can’t Ayers show any improvements in graduation rates for the Chicago schools involved in the Chicago Annenberg program, or those using his educational methods?  Or why does Chancellor Rhee believe that the No Child Left Behind program offers the best approach to reforming public schools in her community?  Why do private and parochial school seem to have better graduation rats than the public schools. even when working with children in poor neighborhoods?  These are all legitimate questions to ask an educator, but no one at NPR seemed interested in asking questions.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

And here was the eminently sensible Bill Maher’s take on it, via The Rachel Maddow Show. Sorry: The Arianna Huffington Show (Note to MSNBC: this woman certainly has great views, and can certainly write. But please, please, please never get her to anchor a show again. She doesn’t have what might be called a voice for radio):

This entire region continues to boom with support for Obama, and I wouldn’t call it blind support. I would call it hope, something we have been lacking for decades.

We supported and rooted for Obama not because we are experts of Obama’s policies or the future ahead. But because he voiced his criticism over the war in Iraq, U.S foreign policy, and Bush’s failed leadership. And that was enough for us to be optimistic and hopeful about what the future can bring for the Middle East. McCain and his running mate spent their time preaching the opposite, focusing too much on the “war on terror,” of which this region is still suffering from. Are we happy to see such war-mongering individuals not win the most powerful positions in the world? I see no reason why we shouldn’t be.

Moreoever, I feel that Obama has specific support from many of us Muslims because we all sympathized and understood how it feels like to be accused of being a “Muslim” who obsesses about the destruction of Israel, something you would have read about in many right-wing American or staunchly, overwhelmingly Zionist blogs in Israel. Now he is being accused by some Arabs of being too much of a Zionist, questioning Arab support for Obama and calling his supporters naive, sometimes outright stupid, claiming it would make no difference whether he or McCain would be President, because “America will always be America,” and that he’s already selling out to Israel and staffing his administration with ardent Zionists. And the question lies there, not with Obama’s intentions. I don’t think he is yet another face of “Evil” who would thrive on immoral, self-serving attacks in the Middle East. The question we should all ask is why AIPAC has such a prominent influence within the U.S government, and why their policies and ideologies are treated like the Bible in American politics.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that every U.S President has unquestionable support for Israel, a country that has yet to be criticized by any candidates throughout the entire campaign. Criticism of Israel in the USA is political suicide. Our issue should be there, this is a fear that we must explore, and if Obama can’t help us through that, no one can.

Roughly half of the last twelve presidents have been left handed. Amongst that group are Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Harry Truman.?? Before World War II, the only known lefties are James Garfield and possibly Herbert Hoover.?? This is because in the 18th century being left-handed was seen as sinful and youngsters were often forced to be right-handed.?? Even Ronald Reagan, though considered left-handed, wrote with his right hand, and may have received the same instruction.

Left-handed isn’t all the particularly common in the population - only 10-15% of people have it, so the number of presidents who’ve been lefties are disproportionate.?? For example, all three major candidates in the 1992 election were left-handed.

So why the vast left-handed conspiracy to dominate the political world??? How the brain works may have something to do with it:

For nearly all right-handers, language abilities reside exclusively on one side of the brain — usually the left, which controls the right hand. But one in seven lefties process language on both sides of the brain, possibly because using their left hands during childhood stimulated the development of the right half. So Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama may have left-handedness to thank for their legendary speaking abilities.

The benefits of being a lefty aren’t only verbal. Many artists and great political thinkers were lefties — Pablo Picasso and Benjamin Franklin, for example. Lefties are overrepresented among the mathematically talented and are also more likely to find unexpected or counterintuitive solutions on problem-solving tests.

I’m not entirely sure about the second paragraph because, while I did well above average on the verbal part of my SATs and verbal-related classes throughout school, my math scores were fairly low, and math was never a strong suit for me.?? I did pretty poorly for most of my time in school.?? It actually only “clicked” when I got into pre-calculus.?? Maybe you don’t have to be good in both.?? (Though, while this has never been medically verified for me, just under my own observation, many skills seem to have “clicked” later for me than a lot of kids my age.?? I was premature by weight, so that may have something to do with it.)

But, whatever the case, it is good to know that America is again led by a leftie.?? Now we can go back to planning the oppression of the righties!?? Or are you supposed to know about that??? Hmm…

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Secretary of state job Clinton's, if she wants it, reports say

SIRI AGRELL

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

November 14, 2008 at 10:46 PM EST

Almost a year ago, Barack Obama was asked in a debate how he could rely on so many Bill Clinton-era advisers while still providing a break from the past, prompting his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to burst out laughing.

Turning to face her, Mr. Obama deadpanned: “I'm looking forward to you advising me too, Hillary.”

Now president-elect, Mr. Obama it seems was not joking.

The pair took a secret meeting in Chicago this week, and Washington is abuzz with rumours that the New York senator will be tapped as his secretary of state.

CNN quoted Democratic sources as saying Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton had a serious discussion about the secretary of state job and that she left the meeting with the impression that it was hers if she wanted it. The Huffington Post blog went further, saying Ms. Clinton was offered the job and requested time to consider it.

But Mr. Obama also interviewed New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the position yesterday, media reports said.

Mr. Obama has also begun staffing his White House, transition team and economic panel with former Clinton administration insiders.

After a two-year battle in which each politician was accused of disrespecting the other, it appears that the Obama-Clinton rift is being repaired, one job opening at a time.

His transition chief, John Podesta, was Bill Clinton's chief of staff during the last two years of his administration. Mr. Obama's own newly hired White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was a senior Clinton adviser before winning a seat in the House of Representatives.

In fact, 31 of the 47 people named to Mr. Obama's transition team or staff have ties to the Clinton administration.

“He's definitely playing on good advice and past expertise and the most recent Democratic administration,” said Melissa Haussman, an associate professor of political science at Carleton University who worked on Ms. Clinton's presidential campaign. “The fact that Obama is inheriting problems that are the worst facing any president in the 20th century, he knows he's got to be prepared.”

Ironically, Dr. Haussman believes the new president learned that lesson from Mr. Clinton, whose own early White House staff was composed of some loyalists unprepared for the task at hand.

“They've got people with a whole lot of experience dealing with Congress, and that's something the Clinton White House was a little short on,” she said of the emerging Obama team.

While Mr. Obama's staff is drawing so heavily on administration insiders of the 1990s that Politico.com joked he is putting “the Clinton band back together,” the most symbolic gesture would be a high-profile position for Ms. Clinton.

Passed over for the vice-presidential slot, the primary runner-up campaigned for Mr. Obama during the general election and is regarded as a natural source of advice, expertise and political capital for Mr. Obama.

Already, she has been approached by Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle, for advice about raising kids in the White House. And now it seems Mr. Obama might be hoping she will help him contend with foreign policy as secretary of state.

But she is already being touted as a smart choice for the position, with an established international reputation that would help heal the country's damaged relationships abroad.

But what's in it for her?

Taking a position in cabinet means Ms. Clinton would lose her Senate seat and influence in domestic policy.

The past two secretaries of state, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, have been lightning rods for criticism, a situation Ms. Clinton may not be willing to endure again.

“Let's face it, as first lady and presidential candidate she was open to a lot of barbs and spears,” Dr. Haussman said. “It's a multiplicity of considerations, thinking about where her talents lie and how much does she want to put herself in a high-profile position again.”

In the post, Strata takes aim at all those who argue that the Republican Party will have to become more ‘conservative,’ that they lost because they were not ‘conservative’ enough, and who have done their best in recent years to alienate moderate Republicans and Independents who then logically turned on the GOP this year and voted for president-elect Barack Obama instead of for Sen. John McCain.

Strata:

The problem with the conservative movement is it repulses more people than it attracts. This is one of many cases where they became too ugly to bear. Look at what a ‘true’ conservative stands for:

Somehow removing all illegal aliens from the country and putting up massive barriers along our borders. Conveys a nice, warm and friendly view of that city on the Hill? More like a gated community of snobs who cannot be bothered by ‘the masses’.

Opposition to giving senior citizens in poverty or on the edge of poverty a prescription drug benefit through Medicare/Medicaid, a program that reduces the cost of these programs because it removes the need to go to emergency rooms for basic medications. Those mean old Scrooges on the right where will to keep medicine from the sick and poor! Where is the shining city on the hill in this?

Opposition to education reform and desire to pull their kids out of the public school system. I think it is OK to want better than public school system can provide for kids (we all do). But to also oppose corrective action on those public schools is a step too far. It again looks like those with money are trying to dump those struggling and run to their enclaves. We are a community which does need to fix problems, not hide in gated communities and private schools.

Bush did not want the war against al-Qaeda to be a war against Muslims or Arabs, but then the ‘true’ right when on a purely religious and race based attack against a company from a moderate allied Arab-Muslim nation that was buying into some of our port operations here in the US. Even worse than the racist and religious bigotry behind the panic was the fact those screaming ‘fire’ were not listening to what was in the deal for national security. The deal included the Arab company paying for and installing Cargo sensor systems in all their international ports that would be feeding products into our port. It was a disaster for the GOP and conservatism.

The ‘true’ conservatives still moan on and on about the statesman focused process McCain and Lieberman and 12 other Senators used to avoid constitutional showdowns with Bush’s judicial appointees. A very small number of appointees were not able to get on the bench, but conversely there was no repeat of the Bork or Thomas fiascos. Anyone still holding a grudge against the Gang of 14 is out of sync with America. We don’ want FL 2000 like confrontations. We don’t want to see people Borked. I sometimes feel the ‘true’ conservatives are simply jealous about the moderates who pulled off a solution that avoided endless litigation

Harriet Miers was the poster child for moderates and ex-democrats to leave the party. She was inside Bush’s inner circle and someone who knew very well. She was an ex-democrat - like Reagan and many other leaders of the GOP in the 80’s and 90’s until the purity wars erupted. Harriet Miers illustrated how a few extreme (and in the case of David Frum vengeance driven) conservatives would tear down the impure moderates if they tried to attain leadership or positions of power. It was the universal signal to RINOS and Quislings the GOP umbrella was shrinking and only the pure need apply.

After all this (and more) if anyone is confused about the shrinking GOP brand they are just not paying attention.

One has to agree and disagree with Strata, I’d say. When conservative Republicans argue that one of the main reasons for the Republican Party’s unpopularity these days is, for instance, the massive U.S. debt and the lack of responsible spending during the Bush administration, they are quite simply right. If Bush and the Republican Congress - which was controlled by Republicans for years, Democrats took over only two years ago - would have spent tax payers money wisely and responsibly, chances are that Democrats would not have taken over in 2006, and would not have gained the majorities they will have in 2009 either.

On the other hand, Strata is correct when he criticizes ‘true’ conservatives for refusing to allow Bush, McCain and the Democrats to reach a compromise plan for immigration and other key issues. They could have dealt with this problem in a realistic manner, which would have enabled future administrations to deal even more effectively with it. But no, the proposed bill was not ‘pure’ or ‘anti-illegal immigration’ enough for the conservative base and was shut down.

There are other issues too. Far-right bloggers who have turned the war on terrorism into a war on Islam are making the problem worse rather than better. It is perfectly alright, even necessary, for people to investigate what role religion plays in terrorism and in extremism in general. But many ‘true’ conservatives in America have turned on Islam as a whole; Islam itself is inherently wrong, evil and violent, these individuals say. It became even so bad that Muslim and terrorist have become synonyms in some circles.

This rhetoric puts off potential allies, Muslim allies, Western allies, and moderate voters who have something called common sense and who may have done some research of their own and have come to understand that in order to defend terrorism or violence against civilians in general in Islam, one truly has to distort what the Koran says and ignore large parts of it.

And health care is also an issue of major concern: little has been done in recent years in order to help Americans get an insurance and / or to pay for it. Health care is becoming increasingly expensive. The problem has increased rather than decreased in recent years. But when people try to reform health care, they immediately run into problems with the ‘true’ conservative base, who accuse virtually every proponent of health care reform - which is demanded by voters - of being ’socialist.’ The result: Democrats will be the ones able to pursue health care reform because they are the only ones willing to give voters what they demand. Democrats’ health care reform is likely to be more expensive than absolutely necessary, and it may be that they will pursue too radical plans, which may hurt America’s ability to innovate in this area. Republicans should pick up on this and cooperate with Democrats in order to push through health care reform that will insure more people, push the costs of health care down but that would not damage America’s ability to innovate and compete nonetheless.

Strata is wrong… and right. Conservative should pay attention.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Last June, Joel Benenson, who was Barack Obama’s top pollster during his Presidential run, reported on the state of the campaign. His conclusions, summed up in a sixty-slide PowerPoint presentation, were revealed to a small group...The primaries were over, Hillary Clinton had conceded, and Obama had begun planning for a race against Senator John McCain.

There was good news and bad in Benenson’s presentation. Obama led John McCain, forty-nine per cent to forty-four per cent, among the voters most likely to go to the polls in November, but there was also a large group of what Benenson called “up-for-grabs” voters, or U.F.G.s, who favored McCain, forty-eight per cent to thirty-six per cent. The U.F.G.s were the key to the outcome; if the election had been held then, Obama would have probably lost.

...the presentation explained, “Obama’s image is considerably better defined than McCain’s, even on attributes at the core of McCain’s reputation,” such as “stands up to lobbyists and special interests,” “puts partisan politics aside to get things done,” and “tells people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.”

...Benenson’s polling was revelatory. “Voters actually did not know as much as I think the press corps thought they did about John McCain,” Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to Obama, told me. “What they’d heard about McCain most recently, and certainly during the primary process, was that he was like every other Republican — fighting to sound more like George Bush.” Benenson said, “What we knew at the start of the campaign was that the notion of John McCain as a change agent and independent voice didn’t exist anywhere outside the Beltway.”

Announcing the meeting, an Obama spokesman said:

“It’s well known that they share an important belief that Americans want and deserve a more effective and efficient government, and will discuss ways to work together to make that a reality.”

And here was Keith Olbermann’s take on the news last night:

Blimey. First Joe Lieberman, then Hillary Clinton, now John McCain. Has Barack ever met a politician he didn’t like?