Roland Burris

It looks like Roland Burris will be Obama's replacement in the United States Senate. That's nice for him.

I find it difficult to get worked up over this. It looks like the Senate Dems made a minor tactical mistake when they said that they weren't going to seat him, but these things blow over quickly.

I'm reminded of the old saying that those who like sausage and legislation should watch neither being made. Gamesmanship has been part of politics since politics was invented. This is all perfectly normal. I'm sure that, if you look into the history of Congress, there have been many episodes that are variations on this. Someone in the throes of a scandal does something weird or stupid or against the interests of his/her colleagues, which causes a strong adverse reaction.

What's different about this scandal is that it's taking place on a national (or world) stage, whereas before these things happened behind closed doors, or only within a select group of people. So it seems strange only because so many people aren't used to it. But it's really pretty normal.

Well, maybe not quite "normal." The circumstances of every scandal are unique. That's one reason they're so interesting. But Blago hasn't been convicted, and Burris hasn't done anything wrong, besides having a large ego. But, as Gail Collins points out:

Worst-case scenario, Illinois gets an overly self-involved lawmaker who seems, at this point in his life, to have a tendency to say things that sound somewhat silly. If that was a disqualification, the Senate could never meet a quorum call again.

The people of Illinois could do worse. And they have.

Don't use these passwords

These are the 500 most common passwords. So I recommend against using them. Two in particular are really stupid: thx1138, George Lucas' first film, and ncc1701, the number of the Starship Enterprise.

I'm not going to tell you if any of my passwords are on this list.

(h/t: Andrew Sullivan)

Gaza

I've been resisting commenting on the fighting in Gaza, because there doesn't seem to be much new to say. It seems intractable. But I do have some hope for change when Obama comes into office. And today Thomas Friedman provides his perspective. I like reading Friedman columns on the Mideast because he's an American Jew who has a great deal of respect for Arab and Muslim culture. He provides the larger picture, explaining, for example, the role of Iran, and the struggle between Islamists and modernists.

One of the best columns that I ever read was a David Brooks column from several years ago about the role of respect in politics (I'm not even going to try and find it). Beyond the issues of territory, escalating violence, and demands for reciprocity, respect strikes me as a core issue in the Mideast. George Bush had little, if any, respect for Arabs and Muslims, and certainly had none for the Palestinians. If Obama can demonstrate that he respects Arab culture and Islam as a religion, as well as the Palestinians and their demands for a secure state, then I think he might be able to accomplish a great deal.

It may not be much. It may be a slim hope. But right now, it's all I can think of.

DiFi v. Panetta: Face-saving time

The minor kerfluffle over Leon Panetta's nomination to be head of the CIA (is that position still referred to as DCI - Director of Central Intelligence?) is already cooling down. TPM yesterday reported that Dianne Feinstein was supporting Obama, after he and Biden both called her. So, as I expected, first we have a bit of face-saving: Obama and Biden both show Feinstein a little respect, she pledges her support. But of course she can't back down all the way:

"I understand the administration's desire to cut clean and open a new chapter and I support that. Whether those changes can be made" with Panetta at the helm, she added, remains to be seen.

So she'll ask some tough questions at the confirmation hearing, and Obama won't take her for granted. But that's actually a good thing. I'm all in favor of the Dems in Congress disagreeing with Obama when they feel they have to. That's healthy.

So it all worked out. At least that's the way it looks right now. The LA Times put this story on the front page, but I think they blew it somewhat out of proportion. On the LAT Op-Ed page, Tim Rutten argues in favor of Panetta, pointing out that some of the most experienced directors of the CIA, at least in terms of intelligence, have also been some of the worst.

I still think it's a good call. Time to move on to the next kerfluffle.

Panetta v. DiFi; a spot of trouble?

When I wrote my post yesterday about Leon Panetta at the CIA, I mentioned that he is from California, and would presumably get along with the Congressional Dems from here. I didn't mention that Dianne Feinstein is incoming chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee because that didn't seem like an important detail.

Oops. The LA Times reported that Feinstein was not notified of the choice. She would like an intelligence professional in that job. My reaction is that it was a somewhat surprising mistake on the part of the Obama team. Seems like fairly standard protocol. Marc Ambinder thinks Panetta's name was leaked, and that the Obama team had every intention of notifying Feinstein. Which makes sense.

On the other hand, TPM, which is covering this thoroughly, is reporting that the Obama did consult with Ron Wyden (D-OR), but not Feinstein. So there is still some mystery.

It's an odd little rift between Feinstein (and Jay Rockefeller, outgoing chair) and the Obama team. But the choice is playing well among liberals. Mcjoan at Daily Kos, who followed the FISA debate closely, is dismissive of the two Senators' concerns:

Of course, anybody with a score card who actually paid attention to the FISA debate knows that putting surveillance authority exclusively in the hands of the court was pretty much the whole point of the original FISA legislation, and that Feinstein is continuing to be either overwhelmingly obtuse or profoundly dishonest on that count; it's her inadequate cover for capitulating to the Bush administration and eroding the Constitution.

Josh Marshall has a good take:

[M]y very preliminary impression is that the people whose opinions I respect most seem open to or in favor of the pick, whereas those opposing it strike me as more motivated by turf and power struggles.

Change we can believe in? Sounds like it. Obama is, after all, serious about this whole "making government work" thing. Policy over personalities.

Andrew Sullivan concurs. He agrees with mcjoan:

The more I think about this, the more it seems to me that the snub of these two [Feinstein and Rockefeller] was a deliberate signal. Their oversight of Bush's war crimes was pathetic.

He links to a great interview at the National Review - of all places - by - of all people - Kathryn Jean Lopez. The interviewee, "Ishmael Jones," (I assume a pseudonym), an ex-CIA officer, loves Panetta in this job.

He’s an excellent choice because he will be loyal to the president first, not to the CIA. Mr. Obama needs someone who can be trusted, a person who will support him when the going gets tough.

A “safe” choice, viewed as inoffensive by the CIA’s top bureaucrats, would have been dangerous. Directors Tenet and Hayden were placid Washington civil servants of neutral loyalties, quickly coopted by the CIA’s bureaucracy. A military officer might have had good leadership experience but would have lacked sound partisan political connections.

The choice is a brave one because it can open Mr. Obama to charges of appointing a loyalist to a crucial post. But that is exactly what is needed at this time.

My initial impression seems to be confirmed; Obama wants a great manager, and that's what he is getting. He wants to make sure the CIA actually works as it is supposed to. I'm not sure how having an old hand, an experienced intel pro, would do that. Obama is letting people know that a fresh perspective is needed.

It also looks like Feinstein doesn't have a lot of support, at least on first blush. Of course, the absolutely last thing she wants to do is embarrass Obama on something like this. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell she will really oppose Panetta. It's the President's perogative to choose his cabinet. Not informing Feinstein may or may not have been intentional; I'm still leaning towards it being a leak that hit the press too early. There will, I assume, be some kind of minor face-saving moment, when DiFi meets with Obama personally, he apologizes for the oversight, she accepts his apology, and then they both issue statements about how much they are looking forward to working together, blah blah blah.

Of course, then she and Panetta will have to figure out how to work together, but I don't think that will be an issue. Whether or not Feinstein and Obama agree on policy questions about intelligence reform is a big deal, but we can't tell much about that at this point.

Leon Panetta at the CIA

Well this is interesting. Leon Panetta is apparently Obama's choice to be head of the CIA. Didn't see that one coming. I don't think of him as a foreign policy geek or a military man (although he did serve in the Army in Vietnam).

My first reaction is that it's a great choice. Andrew Sullivan, who is beyond righteous in his continual condemnation of the use of torture under the Bush-Cheney regime, quoted Panetta at length on not using torture and had this comment:

This is a good day for America's soul.

High praise from a skeptic is a good sign.

It took me a minute to see the logic of this choice, but it's not hard to figure out. First, it strengthens the hand of Congressional Democrats, because many of them know him, particularly the ones from California (which would include Nancy Pelosi). Second, he's known as a great manager, someone who can clean up a bureaucratic mess. After taking on the federal budget and the Clinton White House, the CIA might almost be easy. He obviously knows Hillary, and she might have even been pushing for him for this job, so that's good.

Most important, perhaps, he's a tough but fair Democrat. I've always had a strong impression of him as an honest broker. I think he will have the respect of serious people from both sides of the aisle. The wackjobs will find something to complain about, but that's true for every appointment.

I'm impressed. This is a better choice than I was expecting. Great move by Obama. Sort of like Rahmbo - Obama found a tough Democrat for a tough job.

Best and worst dressed of 2008

What would a year-to-year transition be without some good old fashioned fashion judgment? Mr. Blackwell, he of the Best Dressed list, is now dishing with the angels, but Roger Stone, longtime Republican hit man, has volunteered his services. You have to wonder about the sensibility of a man who takes credit for the post-resignation resurrection of Nixon, but he's put in the time to make up the list, so I am going to put politics aside, as much as I can. Let's forget about substance for the moment, shall we?

It's an intriguing list. Jay-Z and Rihanna, for example, both make the Best Dressed list, while Justin Timberlake is one of the Worst, joined by Ashton Kucher (not really a surprise there). I know Jay-Z is the man with the plan, but maybe I should start taking Rihanna a little more seriously.

Obama is top of the men's Best list, no surprise, but one of his compadres is Al Sharpton, not someone I associate with sartorial excellence. Nice to see that. Among the sharp-dressing women are Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Carla Bruni, all excellent choices, along with Sophia Loren (a list without her would be suspect) and Penelope Cruz. Fran Lebowitz and Victoria Beckham also get nods for good taste,l so it's quite a diverse crowd. Personally, I think Michelle should have joined her husband. And I would put Ann Coulter on the Worst list, just because she wears a little black dress so often, and so badly, that I occasionally associate it more with her than with Audrey Hepburn. If that reference becomes permanent in my mind(God forbid), it would be one more reason Coulter should burn in hell.

Finally, he puts Sarah Palin on the list of Best Dressed. The man's a Republican, so I suppose he has his reasons. But, I have to admit, ignoring for a moment the woman's absurd amount of baggage, as well as who paid to fill her closet, she did look great.

The true cost of the 12 days of Christmas

I think we're still technically in the 12 days of Christmas. So, if you are so inclined, you still have time to get your True Love one or more of the presents from the classic song! Turtledoves are probably hot right now! And there's a wealth management company out there to help you figure out how much it's going to cost.

I didn't know this, but apparently PNC (not sure what it stands for), a financial company, has been calculating the cost of Christmas, as defined by the song "Twelve Days of Christmas," and reports on it each year, including a comparison with the cost from previous years. This year, the seven swan-a-swimming are much more expensive, but several other gifts on the list saw decreases, so the overall increase in the Christmas Price Index is right in line with the Consumer Price Index. The maids-a-milking got raises, because they make minimum wage, and that, of course, went up. The maids get minimum wage? That's a bummer. I would consider that at least a semi-skilled job. The total cost is $21,080.10, although I would dispute some of the costs. They buy 14-carat gold rings for $69 each. That's a cheap gold ring, although it's probably just the gold, with no embellishment. Still, if someone gave me a gold ring that only cost $69, I would be questioning her taste in jewelry, not to mention her sense of romanticism. And, quite possibly, her commitment to me.

They also calculate the "True Cost of Christmas," which is what it would cost to give all of the gifts if you repeated all of the verses (therefore 12 partridges in 12 pear trees, for example). That's $86,609. Now THAT'S true love. Of course, it also immediately raises questions - what do you do with all those swans and partridges?

Jim Dunigan, an executive at PNC, gives us the lowdown:

End of the year quizzes

One thing I like about the end of the year is the year-end quizzes. Here are three: two from the LA Times, and one from Gail Collins of the NY Times. I did pretty well on all three - only got one wrong on Collins' quiz!

LA Times Business Section 20 Questions. I got 16 out of 20, which qualified me as a "smarty pants," the highest rating.

LA Times - from the Op-Ed page (and therefore much more general). I got 15 out of 18, but several of them are multiple choice, so I'm going to give myself an A.

Gail Collins - because you know it's going to be funny. I only got one wrong!

Good luck!

Tina Fey and an unusual flag on the cover of Vanity Fair

Tina Fey was on the cover of Vanity Fair's January 2009 issue. The photo is by Annie Leibovitz, who also shot the pictures inside, and the interview is by Maureen Dowd. Three of my favorite women! Of course I had to buy it.

Tina is holding an American flag in her left hand, an Uncle Sam hat in her right, and is wearing red, white and blue. Very patriotic.



If you look closely at the flag, you might notice something a little unusual. All of the stars on both the left and right are perfectly aligned. That's only possible if there are the same number of stars in each row. It looks like there are six rows. It's impossible to count the number of stars in each row, because it's waving, but I would be willing to bet that there are eight stars in each row. Six rows, eight stars each row, is 48 stars.

But, of course, there are 50 states. On today's flag, there are nine total rows - 5 rows of 6 (30) and 4 rows of 5 (20).

That's not a mistake. It would take a fair amount of work to find a 48-state flag in good enough shape to shoot for the cover of Vanity Fair. That's a conscious decision on Annie Leibovitz's part (and Tina Fey's and Vanity Fair's). So, why? Why shoot a cover with a flag that hasn't been in use since July 3, 1959?

Because that leaves out two states: Alaska and Hawaii. Stars are added for each state on the 4th of July after their admittance to the Union. Alaska was the 49th state, admitted January 3, 1959. Any idea on why Tina Fey, Vanity Fair, and Annie Leibovitz would want to leave out Alaska? Hmmm? Maybe because that's the state that Sarah Palin is governor of? Coincidence?

Hell no. That's a great visual joke. I'm not going to explain it, because that would, of course, kill the joke. I'm just going to enjoy it.

Unfortunately, it also leaves out Hawaii, where Obama was born, but if they had wanted to make a statement about Obama, they would have used a 49-star flag. Which they didn't. Because Tina Fey, Annie Leibovitz, and Vanity Fair love Barack Obama. Like me.