I think this was a very smart set of moves on Obama's part. You have continuity in Robert Gates (though not continuity in the Iraq mission); you have change in Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder and Obama sounded important notes about protecting security while also protecting Americans' freedoms. "The Department of Justice plays a unique role on this team," Holder noted. "It is incumbent on those of us who lead the department to ensure not only that the nation is safe but also that our laws and traditions are respected ... We can and we must ensure that the American people remain secure and that the great constitutional guarantees that define us as a nation are truly valued." I was excited about Holder's statement, and didn't want it to get lost in the hoopla over Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.

This is a team that will protect the nation's military might but bring back diplomacy, global partnership and concern for human rights. They're focused on terror, but also the global inequality that leads to terror. You look at that group onstage Monday, and while you may quibble about one choice or another, it's hard not to think Obama looks like a supremely strong leader to have assembled them.

I've already written about why I think Hillary Clinton is a strong choice for secretary of state. On Monday Obama himself made the point I made on "Hardball" two weeks ago: The foreign policy differences between them are very small, and were exaggerated for political effect during the primary. To the extent that there were differences, she liked to play the experienced hawk, while he was generally more of a voice for diplomacy, of sitting down with dictators, talking to our enemies. She didn't want him sitting down with foreign dictators with no preconditions, so she'll be in charge of setting up those meetings for him. It's a funny symbolism. I assume they'll both be getting some 3 a.m. calls.

I also think we should pay attention to what Obama praised  about Clinton: her discipline and her work ethic. He clearly sees someone who's going to work hard to advance his agenda, which he knows is also her agenda. She cannot succeed if in any way if she undermines him, and they both know that.

And while the Clintons are controversial at home, partly because of their own missteps but also thanks to an industry of professional Clinton haters, they both have a tremendous global reputation and global relationships. They stand for a time when the U.S. was more respected in the world. I think Obama is smart to annex the name and the relationships on his behalf.

I had to debate Christopher Hitchens, Clinton-hater-in-chief, on "Hardball" today. I thought I held my own, but when I watched it I caught many outright falsehoods that I missed, like his calling Saudi Arabia's Wahhabist leadership the "main clientele" of former President Clinton. Hitchens has allowed himself to be deranged by his Clinton hatred, and it's unfortunate to see a smart guy disabled by his own bias.

My bottom line is, if Hitchens is right, and Hillary Clinton is an utterly unqualified political hack who only cares about her political future and her husband's, what does her selection say about Barack Obama? Either he's naive and wimpy, and hasn't availed himself of the superior knowledge of the Clintons that Hitchens claims (or he knows and doesn't care about it); or he knows everything Hitchens does and picked her anyway for craven domestic political reasons: to get the Clintons inside his tent, not outside of it, and to co-opt a potential 2012 rival. That would be more politically venal than almost anything Hitchens accuses Clinton of doing: sacrificing our nation's global diplomatic interests to his domestic political ambitions.

So now Hitchens is extending his baseless charges of corruption against the Clintons to smear Obama. This, of course, makes me admire Obama all the more: He's taken both Clintons inside his tent because he needs them and recognizes their formidable domestic and foreign political and policy skills. He's spending political capital on them, because he thinks they're worth it, and saying a big, polite "up yours" to the Clinton haters who've made a career out of spreading this garbage. Those are my words, not Obama's, of course; he's much more diplomatic.

You can watch my debate with Hitchens here:

It now seems particularly ridiculous that Republicans tried to make an issue out of Biden's factual statement, during the campaign, that Obama would be "tested" by our adversaries early in his term. Of course he will, and maybe this set of attacks will be part of it, maybe it will be something brand-new after Jan. 20.

I find myself particularly grateful for Obama's calm and his clear judgment as I think about future awful days like this one. I'm glad he got a jump on his economic team this week, and I'm relatively happy with the news about his foreign policy and defense team as it emerges, particularly Hillary Clinton at State and Susan Rice as U.N. ambassador. Frankly, I'm torn about reports that Obama will keep Robert Gates as secretary of Defense. Like all Iraq war opponents and Bush critics, I'd like a clean break with the past. On the other hand, Gates was an improvement on Donald Rumsfeld, and wasn't responsible for Abu Ghraib or Rumsfeld's retaliation against war skeptics and critics in Defense.

Watching these scenes from Mumbai, I am a little more sympathetic to arguments that Obama needs experience and stability at Defense as he takes charge. But just a little. It would be wrong to let an ugly terror attack, wherever it occurs, shake our values and our commitment to a sane foreign and defense policy. We tried that seven years ago and look where it got us.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. I'm grateful for your readership and support.

But it may be too carefully. I find myself wondering whether there's more he or his team could do to change the awful terms of the Citigroup bailout, for instance. And did he have anything to say about the Fed's $600 billion plan to buy more troubled mortgage-backed securities, which even Paul Krugman can't understand?

I watched Obama's Tuesday press conference thinking he may be trying a little too hard to reassure Republicans he's concerned about "fiscal responsibility," as though Republicans have a claim to any kind of responsibility after the last eight years.  Singling out a relatively tiny program that rewards millionaire farmers, as Obama did, isn't going to reassure anybody that he's got a secret weapon for cutting pork. Nor is his promise to go over the budget line by line. Maybe these are a needed sop to people afraid of Great Society overreaching, but I'm not sure he should be worried about that. I'm most afraid of underreaching.

I have been a great advocate of trusting Obama in this transition, and for the most part, I do. It's early to second-guess his appointments, and I'm not inclined to, because they all seem sound. (I think Glenn Greenwald and other bloggers deserve a round of applause for making it politically impossible for him to appoint John Brennan to a top intelligence post. Obama's reported decision to retain Defense Secretary Robert Gates isn't surprising and probably merits its own column.) On the economy, Andrew Leonard has already laid out the reasons Timothy Geithner was a strong pick for Treasury secretary -- mainly, his relatively early (if still belated) recognition of the problems with the greed-inspired toxic phantasms of the lending industry.

And while Greenwald today sounded some valid warning notes about the kvelling over Geithner and National Economic Council chairman Larry Summers -- making the important point that both of them are implicated in the deregulation that led to the current collapse, and the overreliance on monetary policy that slowed a strong response to the crisis -- it's going to be hard to find anyone experienced in government who wasn't misguided about those things. The question is, how early did Obama's new team members realize they were wrong, and what did they do? (Two must-reads on this issue: John Cassidy's New Yorker profile of Ben Bernanke, which shows how everyone at the Fed, including Geithner, was behind the curve, and how they have tried to play catch-up; and John Judis' disturbing piece about Obama's Council of Economic Advisors chair Christina Romer, who likewise seems to have realized too late that monetary policy alone couldn't stop the slide.)

The bigger question about Obama's economic plan is going to be whether and when he'll be able to tell the truth about how much blame the Bush administration bears for the current mess, and what it's going to take to get us out of it. Speaking today, the president-elect again talked about the need for bipartisanship in this time of crisis. Meanwhile, Grover Norquist was on CNBC blaming the crisis on Democrats retaking control of Congress in 2006 and raising the specter of repealing Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Whatever the problem, the solution for most Republicans is tax cuts for the rich, even after the Bush economic agenda brought us to the brink of ruin. Bravo to David Sirota for stating the factually true and obvious: Bill Clinton's tax increases on the wealthy after the last Bush recession helped usher in an era of prosperity.

The issue isn't as simple as tax cuts or tax hikes, and this economic downturn is much more complex and troubling than that of the early '90s. But Democrats need to say, every chance they get, that they are inheriting a crisis caused by an overdose of Republican, free-market economic policy, which tried to establish a tax-cutting, regulation-slashing, winner-take-all, loser-gets-nothing (unless he runs a big dumb corporation that took unconscionable risks driven by greed, and then he gets a bailout) paradise. I wanted Obama to say that in Chicago this afternoon.

Even as I write that, I know that's not the president we elected. As much as we on the left like to think we're his base, and like to talk about how much he owes us, Obama made a conscious decision to pitch himself as a post-partisan guy who'd appeal to centrists and even Republicans. I wrote about that during the primary season; Digby writes about it here. Now, he did hone a more populist message in the last months of the campaign, and I believe he won largely because people believed he'd deliver real solutions to the economic crisis. Obama himself noted that today, saying, "We had a decisive win, because of the extraordinary desire for change on the part of the American people."

But he then went on say that "it's important we enter into the administration with a sense of humility, and recognize that wisdom isn't the monopoly of any one party." I'm sure he's right; it just doesn't feel that way right now. As Obama speaks to the other party with respect and diplomacy, I desperately want him to remember that he'll never have a window like this one to make big economic and political change. There's actually a bipartisan consensus behind a big domestic stimulus package; next week we'll be asking experts what it should do. It's fine for Obama to talk nicely to conservatives; I just frankly hope he's listening mostly to liberals as he shapes his economic plan.

Tuesday's short press conference also gave us a window onto what reporters are concerned about: whether Obama is confusing people about who's president (if only) and whether he's going to "overreach."  Oy. That's why I'm largely inclined to give Obama a pass until he's actually president, and can do things -- rather than just talk about them, and have the media worry about problems that don't exist. Jan. 20 can't come soon enough for me.

Fleischer launched the conservative advocacy group, set up to support pro-war GOP candidates, with self-aggrandizing bravado, announcing, "For people who believe in peace through strength, the cavalry is coming." Describing pampered Beltway lobbyists and fat cats as "cavalry" in a time of war was bad, but it was worse when Fleischer used real disabled soldiers in his Freedom's Watch ads, but couldn't remember their names.

On Monday the Las Vegas Review Journal reported that after spending $30 million in the last election cycle, Freedom's Watch was winding down. The group's spokesman refused to give the Review Journal a list of the races where it was active, although in Las Vegas itself it ran goofy, ineffectual ads against Democrat Dina Titus, who won.

In the anti-meritocracy that is the GOP, Fleischer is sure to be rewarded with another cushy post, but let's celebrate small victories.

Since his most controversial move is (reportedly) considering Hillary Clinton for secretary of state, it's clear my respect for Clinton has a lot to do with it. I thought she'd be an excellent president, so it's not surprising I think she'd be a good choice for secretary of state. She's smart and tough, has a lot of respect worldwide, she had an international portfolio as first lady, and she's strengthened that experience as a senator and on the Armed Services Committee. She'd also be a strong voice for women's rights globally.

But there's one qualification to my belief that she'd be a good choice: I only think so if Barack Obama thinks so. If he believes she can contribute to his foreign policy, but most important, carry it out; that she can represent him well and inform his worldview; that she can improve our standing abroad, well, then, I believe she can, too. This choice is neither a popularity contest nor a meritocracy; it's all about the person the president believes can best represent his foreign policy and America's interests in the world. He has to deeply trust the man or woman in that role.

One reason I believe Clinton could loyally represent Obama's foreign policy is that I think the differences between them were exaggerated for political reasons during the primary season. He had a political stake in portraying her as a hawk; she had one in portraying him as naive and unready. He was right about Iraq from the get-go and she was wrong, but their positions on how to get out were virtually identical. Despite their debates about how and when to sit down with dictators, I think they'd take much the same approach to dealing with both our enemies and our friends. So it makes sense to me that Obama would seriously consider her for the post.

Now, if they continue to talk and he has doubts about her capacity to loyally represent him abroad; if concerns emerge about President Clinton's global dealings; if any number of genuine troubles arise that convince Obama that despite his initial enthusiasm, it's not the right choice, I'll accept that. The only bad reason not to pick Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is the predictable media mob of Clinton haters telling him not to.

I just finished a "Hardball" debate on this with Michelle Bernard, who said it was "bordering on sheer lunacy" that Obama was considering Clinton. My friend Chris Matthews, no Clinton fan, led off the segment blaming the Clintons for the flurry of leaks about her possible appointment, although I reminded him that when NBC's Andrea Mitchell broke the news last week, she cited only Obama sources. It's clear there's more leaking from the Obama transition team -- about Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder and Tom Daschle, not just Clinton -- than there was from the campaign team. Rather amazingly, Matthews said I won him over with my argument that people who trust and believe in Obama should trust him on the choice of Clinton as secretary of state as well. We'll see.

Meanwhile, the selection of former Sen. Tom Daschle as secretary of Health and Human Services should mollify those who were beginning to wonder whether Obama was leaning too heavily on Clinton loyalists in his staff and Cabinet picks. My God, it just seems early to worry. He has a ton of appointments left. The only reason Clinton is getting so much attention is that Clinton haters are making her the top story. Who's going to be secretary of the Treasury, and how should he or she modify the bailout Henry Paulson is managing so poorly? Who's Obama's education pick, and what can that person do to improve American education, especially for low-income kids? Why aren't we debating those questions all day and night on cable news? Trust me: It's not because Bill Clinton is holding a gun to someone's head, demanding that we talk about him and his wife 24/7, no matter what Christopher Hitchens might claim.

This on a day when one anonymous Democratic aide bragged to Chris Cilizza that letting Joe Lieberman keep his chairmanship would mean: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question." It's odd that Buchanan shows more respect for the left than leading Democrats do. The Lieberman decision is an abomination, and Obama and the Democrats may well regret it. Buchanan is no friend of the left, obviously, but he's an old-time pol who understands the importance of keeping the base happy. Too many Democrats seem to think the first thing they should do when they get power is display contempt for their base.

But I think it's important to keep the Democrats' and Obama's moves on Lieberman separate from the way we assess his Cabinet choices right now. I’m obviously not someone who sees Hillary Clinton as a bad, anti-change appointment; I think she'd make a terrific secretary of state. I have no problem with Eric Holder as attorney general, either; I think he'd fix the Justice Department that Bush destroyed, and I'm happy to see that Obama isn't afraid to make an African-American his first official Cabinet pick. I wish Holder had tried to block the awful Marc Rich pardon when he was deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, but I'm not sure a lot of deputies would have stood up on that issue.

Still, I understand the disappointment of some Obama supporters, watching so many Clinton staffers line up for jobs in the change administration. I don't share their disappointment, because I honestly didn't believe there was much difference between Clinton and Obama, and how they would govern, in the first place. Some of the angst seems a little goofy: It's always been true that a lot of people closest to Obama during the campaign -- Holder, new White House counsel Greg Craig, foreign policy advisors Susan Rice and Anthony Lake; after the primary, Rahm Emanuel – once worked for the Clintons. So should they be seen as Clinton loyalists, or the new Obama team? It's funny how they were all seen as part of the new politics of change represented by Obama -- until he started building his administration, and then the mainstream media (and a few on the left) started deriding them as old school.

So while I think anger about the Lieberman maneuver is justified, I think it's way too early to panic about Obama's Democratic status-quo Cabinet. He's got plenty of time for unconventional picks.

Meanwhile, I don't know what to think on the Hillary Clinton front. It seems very strange that the Obama team revealed this possible appointment, and yet five days later, it's still little more than a well-sourced rumor. Are they really letting the media vet Clinton -- and Bill Clinton -- to see if they're worth the trouble? That doesn't seem like the Obama we've come to know, who appears to be a person of courage and integrity. All of Clinton's pluses -- intelligence, experience, stature on the world stage -- and minuses -- certain policy differences with Obama, her husband's baggage -- were well known before anybody ever mentioned a possible Clinton Cabinet post to a reporter. It's an odd mini-drama that's dragging out longer than it should, but this time it doesn't seem as though Clinton is to blame.

Whatever you think about Lieberman, it's amazing to have someone like Maddow interrogating the Evan Bayhs of the world. Here's the interview:

MADDOW: You have been outspoken of Senator Lieberman keeping his role as chair of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Why do you think he's the best Democrat for that job at this point?

BAYH: I don't think this is about Joe Lieberman, Rachel. I think this is about maximizing our chances of making the changes that we need in America, maximizing the chances that President-elect Obama will meet those expectations you referred to by addressing the challenges that we face that you also reported on just a few moments ago. And let me explain to you what I mean. If this was just about Joe Lieberman and the things he said in the campaign, well, I'd say we'll let it go. I mean, if people want to settle scores, fine. I mean, he's a big guy, he can live with the consequences of his actions.

But one of two things will be likely to happen if we were to kick him out of his chairmanship. No. 1, he might very well decide to just resign from the Senate. You know, he probably would not want to be a person without a home, wandering the hallways without any influence of any kind. And Connecticut has a Republican governor, who would appoint a pure Republican to that seat, who would vote against the wishes of the president-elect and the Democratic caucus, you know, the vast, vast majority of the time. That's No. 1.

No. 2, Lieberman, Joe Lieberman might decide to stay and be embittered. And what would happen there would be from time to time, we have close votes. You've been reporting on the Alaska race and the Minnesota race and the Georgia race. We could be at 58, 59, maybe even 60 votes. Every two or three or four months, there's going to be a critically important vote, very close, every vote will count. And it might come down to one vote.

Now, if Senator Lieberman has a strong view, he'll vote his conscience, but if he's conflicted, frankly, you know, doesn't really know what to do, and we've exacted revenge on him, I suspect we could probably expect the same in return. That's really not where we want to go. Let's see if we can move this in a better direction.

And the final thing I'd say is, if he does retain his chairmanship, we still exert oversight over him and control over him. He doesn't have the ability to just do whatever he wants. The caucus still has the right to remove him from that position at any time if he starts going off on some kind of tangent.

So I simply think it maximizes the chances of getting progressive policies a better outcome if we have a Joe Lieberman, who is a little reticent, who apologizes for the things that he said that were way over the line, and instead is trying to do the right thing, instead of an embittered Joe Lieberman or a Republican replacement who will not be with us any of the time.

MADDOW: Is it not setting a strange precedent, though, for somebody to have not only campaigned against the nominee of his party but also to have campaigned against other Democratic Senate candidates and for Republicans, and to have honestly not only campaigned for his friend John McCain but also really deliberately against Barack Obama -- as you said, going, I think, quite over the line in terms of some of his criticism.

Is it not setting a strange precedent that he essentially gets to set the terms on which he stays in the caucus? He's said he will bolt the caucus if he doesn't get to hold on to his chairmanship. It seems weird that he should be the guy driving the bargain at this point, particularly when he's sort of politicized homeland security in order to make political points this year.

BAYH: Well, it is unusual territory. And you know, I was on another national show, one of the Sunday programs sitting right next to him, when he basically said that Barack Obama was for defeat in Iraq. And I had to cut him off and say, Joe, that's not true. I mean, he said things that were simply unacceptable, and I think he needs to apologize for that. And the question for us, then, Rachel, is how do we move on from here and maximize the chances of us getting good things done for the country, for your viewers. And I think the best way to do that is to look to the future rather than to just exact revenge for the past.

Now, at the same time, you have got to expect an apology, a sincere apology, and you have got to keep -- to tell him, look, we're going to give you a chance here. But if you don't do the right things as chairman, if, you know, we see any continuation of this kind of behavior, well, then, at that point, you know, the game is up at that point.

MADDOW: But the game would be up in the sense that he would get stripped of his leadership positions?

BAYH: Of the chairmanship, yes. You've got to remember, we have the right to change chairmen at any time during the session, and you know, we would expect him to conduct himself in that capacity, as someone who was supportive of the administration and did not certainly conduct himself in a way that reflected some of those comments, which I strongly disagreed with at the time, and still do disagree with.

MADDOW: Senator Bayh, do you think that there are going to be major issues -- major divisions within the Democratic caucus on issues of national security and homeland security moving forward? I mean, one of the things about Joe Lieberman's chairmanship is that he, in the past couple of years, has been a real contrast with his colleague in the House, his counterpart in the House, Henry Waxman, who heads the Government Affairs Committee there, in terms of what he's been willing to investigate. Joe Lieberman didn't investigate the government's response to Katrina or the Blackwater shootings in Iraq or anything like that. Are there going to be real interparty divisions on security issues, or do you see a united front going forward?

BAYH: Well, I would hope we would have a united front. And you know, if the caucus and the committee feels that there are areas worthy of investigation -- and you mentioned two that I think would warrant investigation -- then there should ... one would need to go forward, regardless of what the chairman happens to think. And we have the power to demand that sort of thing.

But I do hope, Rachel, we have just come through a tough campaign. We have major issues that we face, real challenges -- healthcare, education, the environment, getting out of Iraq -- a lot of things that we need to do. I would hope we would have the maximum amount of unity addressing those things. And I honestly think -- you know, look, we can take away his chairmanship. That's something we have the right to do. What you will have at that point is either someone who may very well resign or someone who's embittered, and if, you know, all else being equal, might not be with us on some of these key votes. I honestly think we have a better chance to get unity for the kind of policies that you would probably support, most Democrats would probably support, if we try and have some reconciliation here rather than resorting to revenge right off the bat. You always have that option if things don't seem to be working out very well.

MADDOW: You're giving me a great prompt to ask Senator Lieberman to come deliver that apology on this show. So thank you for that. And thank you for -- sorry, go ahead.

BAYH: Issue the invitation. And by the way, congratulations on being No. 7. In the United States Senate -- in the United States Senate, that would be right up there.

MADDOW: I would be fighting it out with Lieberman at this point, I know.

Let me say first: I agree with Palin on one thing: the anonymous McCain advisors who've savaged her since she became a drag on their ticket are cowards and jerks. Whatever her flaws, McCain is to blame for all of them, because he's the one who "went rogue" and picked her with inadequate vetting. I've said that before. But Palin isn't particularly helping her case with these interviews. If you like her, you'll like what she has to say. If you don't like her, or more relevant, don't think she ever had what it takes to be vice-president: Well, nothing in either interview will reassure you.

Hands down her worst performance came in a "Web-only" video where Lauer asks Palin about the infamous Katie Couric interview, and whether it took a toll on her confidence. She tells Lauer no, but adds: "I think it also showed, though, that certainly as a Washington outsider and not one to just I guess play even the campaigning media game that is played, in just repeating, perhaps, memorized lines in a, in a interview, that's not me." Read that again. Trademark Palin grammar, and totally unconvincing. Answering questions about foreign policy and Supreme Court decisions isn't a matter of rote memorization, it's a matter of knowledge, depth, intellectual curiosity and experience that she clearly doesn't have.

She was also borderline dishonest about the issue of whether she looked into banning books while she was Wasilla mayor, using as "proof" the fact that some people claimed she wanted to ban the "Harry Potter" series, even though it was written after she was mayor. In fact, Salon interviewed a Wasilla minister who said his book, "Pastor, I Am Gay," was on Palin's hit list. Palin can say Howard Bess is lying, but she's choosing to address only the most ludicrous claims against her. Not convincing.

She was also unconvincing when she downplayed talk of campaign infighting and dysfunction -- and then gave Lauer a great example of it. She told the story of working with two speechwriters on a version of a concession speech to give in Phoenix. But she admits she didn't know until she was walking up to the stage that she wouldn't be allowed to give it. That's dysfunction. And even though I'm sympathetic to Palin's complaints about McCain advisors' anonymous claims that she sent aides out shopping for her, her defense won't rise beyond "he said, she said" sniping until she's willing to name some names, herself. Who bought the clothes? Who does she think is behind the leaks? I'm sure she knows.

But the saddest part for me was the interview with little Piper, who tells Matt Lauer she didn't like campaign rallies, missed her friends and fell behind in school. But when Mommy asks if she'd like to do it again in 2012, Piper says sure. I found myself asking: Why wasn't Piper home attending school, like the Obama daughters did most of the time? Was Todd Palin enjoying the campaign trail too much to stay home with the family?

I'm hoping I can put Sarah Palin behind me, although she's got a big star turn Wednesday at the Republican Governor's Association meeting, including a press conference. Clearly she thinks she's ready for prime time, and that the McCain campaign hid her light under a bushel. So we'll be seeing more of her in the weeks to come. Given her plummeting poll numbers at the end of the campaign, it's just more good news for Democrats that she's fighting to emerge as a party leader in the wake of McCain's shellacking.

It's not simple, or simplistic. It's clear race cost Barack Obama votes in some Southern states and counties, where lower-income, less-educated white voters rejected him in higher numbers than they did John Kerry four years ago, despite the Democratic tide in 2008.

But overall Judis concludes that race didn't hurt Obama. In national exit polls, those who said race was a major factor in their vote backed Obama 53-46, suggesting that race was a "net plus" for Obama, Judis says. In some white states he outperformed Kerry, as well as the white Senate candidate (New Hampshire is one). I was particularly intrigued by what Judis says about Ohio:

Then there were states where Obama had previously encountered resistance on account of his race but that he carried in the election. These include some of the crucial battleground states. When Hillary Rodham Clinton defeated Obama in Ohio's Democratic primary last March, 20% of Ohio's voters said race was an "important factor" in their decision, according to exit polls. Of these, 59% voted for Clinton. That suggested about 12% of Ohio's white Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents opposed Obama partly or primarily because of his race. Primary voters, of course, are a small percentage of those who vote in a general election and, on average, are less likely to take race into account. So it was probably fair to assume that Obama could lose as much as 20% of the Democratic vote in November because of his race. But in the general election, Obama carried Ohio Democrats by 9 to 1, and improved on Kerry's totals from 2004 among white voters. There was evidence that race was a factor -- 19% said it was "important" in their vote -- but Obama got these voters by 52% to 47%.

Canvassers in Ohio said Obama's economic message trumped race, and that seemed true in Pennsylvania as well. In white, working class Levittown, Pa., Clinton beat Obama 3-1 in the April primary. But last week, Obama slaughtered McCain there, getting more votes in the four municipalities that comprise the Levittown region than Kerry did. It's clear some people voted for Obama despite still harboring doubts about electing an African American. “I have to admit, his race made my decision harder,” Joe Sinitski told the New York Times. “I was brought up that way. And I don’t like his name. I’ll admit to that, too.”

I've said it before, but I'll say it one last time: It's clear the long primary was good for Obama. Hillary Clinton showed him the primacy of economic issues in the big eastern and midwestern states, and modeled a kitchen-table appeal that could win those voters. Obama's pitch in October and November was far more focused and populist than it was in March and April (of course, the September economic crisis helped) and people liked the difference.

There's another observation worth making about Clinton's primary campaign. One thing got lost in the debate over her run, over whether she should have quit earlier,  how many of her supporters were racist, and so on: It was an amazing accomplishment -- for Hillary Clinton and for America -- that Clinton became the standard bearer of the white working class, especially blue collar men; that she, of all people, became the person who pointed the way toward winning back Reagan Democrats.

Remember that we're talking about Hillary Clinton here. In the 1990s, a political industry was devoted to making her the poster girl for emasculating radical feminism and left-wing politics. Long before Obama was being smeared as a Marxist, Clinton was fending off those charges (Remember "It Takes a Village" as a prescription for socialism?) For a lot of people, especially men, she was far worse than her husband. One thing I couldn't believe during the primary was the number of male friends who simply despised her in the 1990s, who voted for her in the primaries this year.

Looking back, it's clear many Obama supporters were too busy blaming racism for her success, while Hillary backers were too busy blaming sexism for her failure, to appreciate what a huge triumph for feminism and social justice her 18 million votes represented.

So congratulations to white people who overcame their prejudices to vote for Obama. Congratulations to working class men and women who overcame the right-wing's depiction of Hillary as radical harridan to vote for her in the primaries. Congratulations to all of us. Obama will become president in a global crisis, but the country behind him has never been stronger.

As Media Matters reported Friday, just two weeks ago Bozell was on "Fox and Friends" frothing about Obama espousing "socialism." But today he told Fox's Bill Hemmer "that Barack Obama ran as a Reaganite and won over the fiscal -- the public as a fiscal conservative." Bozell continued: "That means that Barack Obama does not have the mandate to enact the left-wing agenda he wants to enact. He didn't run on it, he ran from it."

Few conservatives are quite as blatantly dishonest as Bozell, but this is generally how the discourse has shifted.  I should also note that Media Matters had already done pretty much  what I asked for on Wednesday: a study examining where the country's "center" really lies, and showing how much closer it is to liberalism than Bush-Cheney-Rove conservatism.

In other news: I will stop being such a starry-eyed Obama fan soon, I promise, but I loved his line today about wanting to get a shelter puppy for his daughters, which would likely be mixed-breed, or "a mutt, like me." I think he's already made it easier to talk about race in this country, and it's only going to get better.

Well, that was the very danger, it seemed: overreaching, now that Democrats control two branches of government. Over on CNN a moment later, a poll was asking voters if they feared Democrats having that control, even though they just gave it to them.

So here we were: Just 12 hours after America joyously elected its first black president, with a popular-vote margin bigger than any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964, plus solid congressional Democratic majorities, we were back to equating Democrats with "danger" and "fear."

Wake me when it's over. Except, of course, it will never be over, as long as Obama is president.

I can't even aggregate the links to mainstream media stories warning that the Democrats have to ignore their liberal base because this is a "center-right" country -- there are too many of them, and only one of me. Salon group-blogged about that theme early Tuesday, and I took the role of "conservative" with Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota, saying I did believe Obama has to reach out to moderates and even willing Republicans to sell the country on his policies. I still believe that.

But I also believe he has to respect his own mandate, and govern in a way that honors those who voted for him, accomplishes what he promised and, hopefully, lets him get reelected to finish his work. Democrats just never seem to get around to doing that, which is something I'd like to see Obama change. That would be change I could believe in.

And let's be clear, Obama has a mandate. Not only did he win a bigger victory margin than any Democrat since Johnson, it was a bigger margin than that of first-term Ronald Reagan, and either-term George W. Bush. Yet those conservative Republicans wasted no time claiming a mandate. Obama, like Reagan, saw his presidential win accompanied by big Democratic victories in the House and Senate. I don't remember pundits warning Reagan and his GOP majority to reach out to Democrats. (I suppose it's possible I simply don't remember, I was just finishing college. Use the letters section to tell me if I'm wrong.) Even today, though, I never hear anyone say: Reagan really should have governed from the center.

So why are pundits saying that about Obama?

One reason is, even if you can get agreement on Obama's having a mandate, there's no consensus on what it means. Given that he ran and won against a guy who labeled him a radical Marxist socialist, I could argue that his mandate is quite far to the left.  I don't think that's true. I think it is fair to say, given the role the economy played in this election, that Obama has a mandate for a new dynamism on the economy, with a strong government role on the side of fairness, equity and creating wealth for many, not just a few.

Let's face it, when you have a Republican Treasury secretary essentially nationalizing  banks, it's silly to pretend we're still debating whether government should interfere with the free market. That's done. The question is different: Should the government only intervene to help rich people, hoping that help will trickle down? Or should it use its power to, well, spread the wealth, and make sure the economy works for everyone?

I think Obama's priorities are already clear. Luckily, what he has laid out as early priorities mesh with what the world is handing him. It's obvious he has to start with the economic meltdown -- figuring out whether the $700 billion bailout plan already passed can have real impact; whether he can get bankers to lend the money Henry Paulson gave them; overall, how to fix it so it works. He should also be driving whatever economic stimulus package the congressional leadership is proposing, whether it happens during the lame-duck Congress  or in January.

When it comes to the question of bipartisanship, I think Obama should a) remember that  Democrats elected him and b) reach out mainly to Republicans who reach out to him, who want to be about a new way of doing business in this country. He shouldn't reach out merely for the sake of bipartisanship; he can't afford the gridlock that would ensue by bringing someone who opposes his policies into his "team of rivals" to obstruct him. I believe there are Republicans and moderates out there who've had their hearts broken by Bush's mendacity and incompetence, and partly healed by Obama's vision. Colin Powell or Chuck Hagel might be among them. I won't go that far with Condi Rice. 

As to governing from the center, I say, "Sure!" I'm a conciliator. But I'd stipulate that we need some help determining where the center is. The Reagan and Bush revolutions tore the center from its moorings and dragged it so far to the right, Sarah Palin is just a nice conservative mom instead of a Christian extremist. Can we get someone to locate the actual political center for us? Isn't this something that's kind of empirical? I'll ask our staff to get some pollsters and policymakers on it, and we'll get back to you. But in the meantime, I'd stipulate that the elections of 2006 and especially 2008 tell us that the country is center-left, not center-right. (Even Fox News agrees with me! That's scientific evidence!) If we all agree, I'm happy for Obama to govern from there.

One last problem with bipartisanship and working with Republicans. Um, the Republican leaders, at least in the House of Representatives, well, they just don't want to reciprocate. Here's angry John Boehner, the House minority leader, via Talk Left:

America remains a center-right country. Democrats should not make the mistake of viewing Tuesday's results as a repudiation of conservatism or a validation of big government. Neither should we. Instead of throwing in the towel, as our opponents demand, we must redouble our efforts to develop forward-looking solutions to the challenges Americans face -- solutions rooted in the enduring principles of reform that define us as a party. We need to focus on winning the issues, one by one, and presenting principled, superior alternatives that reflect the center-right priorities of the American people, rather than the self-serving priorities of Washington.

On "Hardball" Wednesday, Chris Matthews told me and BET's Ed Gordon that Obama deserves a political "honeymoon" to take his best shot at ending gridlock, enacting his promised policies and moving the country forward. Matthews named Bill Kristol as somebody who shouldn't get to control the debate and neuter Obama; boy, do I agree. But I told Matthews that he -- along with me and Gordon and everyone who appears on cable news shows -- could play an important role as well. We can focus on the issues: the best bailout plan, the best stimulus package, the best way out of Iraq. And we can ignore faux campaign or transition scandals, as well as the best GOP plot to turn Obama into Bill Clinton into Jimmy Carter into Michael Dukakis into Karl Marx. I hope Matthews agrees with me. We'll see.

The good news is, the Republicans have never done any of this without help from the media. And today, we are the media. I don't just mean we, Salon, or me and Chris Matthews; I mean you. The Obama campaign blurred the lines of organizing and media; it activated a new network of people not only giving their credit card numbers but starting blogs; talking back in the comments on anti-Obama stories, wherever they are; evangelizing on Facebook. (But can you all change your names back to your real ones now, without Hussein? I'm looking at you, Dwayne).

Seriously, though, if Matthews doesn't take up my challenge, thousands, maybe millions, of you will. It's a different world today. We just have to use the power we don't quite yet know we have.

Asked about the election results, she made unsurprising but pleasant remarks about the greatness of this country: "You just know that Americans will not be satisfied until they do form that perfect union." Then she added: "I just want to close on a personal note: As an African-American, I'm especially proud, because this is a country that's been through a long journey, in terms of overcoming wounds ... That work is not done, but yesterday was obviously an extraordinary step forward."

It wasn't really what she said, but the look on her face as she said it. A genuine grin kept breaking through the mask. Her eyes were glistening. She couldn't contain her excitement, though she was trying.

I've always thought it important, in trying to understand Rice, to remember she was raised in the viciously segregated Birmingham, Ala., of the 1950s and '60s. She was friends with Denise McNair, one of the "four little girls" killed in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in September 1963 (and why don't we remember that as a domestic terror attack?), when Rice was only 9. I've thought it helped explain, though not excuse, her conservatism, and her cleaving to strong white mentors through her career. When she made that infamous slip and called George W. Bush "my husband," I winced for her; I didn't see it as sexual, but as an unconscious yearning for the family and stability she's never had, which she found in the Bush White House, sad as that is.

I know, plenty of people who grew up where and when she did were radicalized by it instead, and devoted their lives to civil rights and social justice. I know, she bears enormous responsibility for the nightmare of the Iraq war. But since this is a day to appreciate the opening to change that Obama's election creates, I think it's a day to be happy to see Condi Rice happy, and to hope she puts her experience and intelligence to work undoing the wrongs of the Bush administration.

Watch the video:

Just watched Wonder Boy's speech. Hmph. "Callused hands?" When did he ever have callused hands? All right, I'm sour. The most liberal member of the U.S. Senate! And that shakedown-artist of a wife, with the permanent frown! And Joe Biden! … I'm sour about the GOP too. What did it all get us, those 8 years of pandering and spending? If GWB had turned his face against new entitlements, closed the borders, deported the illegals, held the line on calls to loosen mortgage-lending standards, starved the Department of Education, and declined those invitations to mosque functions, would the GOP be in any worse shape now? What won this election was the packaging skills of David Axelrod, the swooning complicity of the media, the ruthless opportunism of Barack Obama, and the unprincipled thuggishness of his supporters. What lost this election was the cloth-eared cluelessness of George W. Bush, the timid squeamishness of John McCain, and the deep lack of interest in conservative principles among Republican primary voters. Sour? You bet I'm sour. Where was conservatism in this election? Where was restraint in government? Where was national sovereignty? Where was liberty? Where was self-support? And where are those things now? Where are they headed this next four years? Down the toilet, that’s where. Pah!  

 People Get Ready                                                                      Curtis Mayfield
 Oh, Mary Don't You Weep no More                                    Bruce Springsteen
 I'll Take You There                                                                   Staples Singers
 Touch the Sky                                                                            Kanye West
 Beautiful Day                                                                             U2

Ain't No Stoppin' Us Now                                                      McFadden/Whitehead
The Promised Land                                                                  Bruce Springsteen
I Say a Little Prayer                                                                  Aretha Franklin
Signed, Sealed, Delivered                                                       Stevie Wonder
Your Love Keeps Lifting Me (Higher and Higher)         Jackie Wilson

 Jackie Wilson Said                                                                 Van Morrison
 The Rising                                                                                 Bruce Springsteen
 Move on Up                                                                               Curtis Mayfield
 Encore                                                                                         Jay-Z
 For Once in My Life                                                                Stevie Wonder

MSNBC and CNN have done something very great tonight: First, when everyone called the election for Obama, they just went to ecstatic crowds from Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta to Harlem to Times Square to Spelman College ... and it was so much better than listening to pundits. Now, after Obama's speech, they lingered on the Obamas and Bidens on the stage, which was the story.

"It's been a long time coming, but change has come to America," Obama told the ecstatic Chicago crowd. He hailed his incomparable campaign and all its millions of volunteers. "This is your victory You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead." But he also quickly reached out to McCain voters: "To those Americans who's support I've yet to earn, I need your help, and I'll be your president, too."

I still thrill to the message of Obama's 2004 convention speech, which he reprised tonight: that the election "sent a message to the world: that we have never been a collection of red states and blue states, we have always been and are the United States of America." People were crying that night in the Fleet Center, they were so moved. The message was right, but the moment apparently wasn't. The moment is finally now.

We started blogging this morning with a debate about whether and how Obama needs to reach out to moderates and Republicans. I don't want to worry about that tonight; I want to enjoy it. I assume he has to and he will reach out to the middle -- on his terms, I hope. But there's no doubt in my mind that a victory of this size is a mandate for big change, and I expect him to claim it.

I'm going to join David Talbot and Gary Kamiya at Gary's house, where we all celebrated Bill Clinton's election in 1992. I'll add at least one post from there. Happy Election Day, everybody!

A few of us will carry on for a while. I'm sitting here waiting for Obama's speech, and then I'll head over to Gary's party, and maybe join kressskin in drunk-blogging over there.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (11:50 p.m. EST): As I'm currently in a time zone three hours ahead of the East Coast, coherence is not in ample supply at the moment, and this will therefore likely be my last post for the evening.

Two last bits of good news: Two of the most wretched, genuinely hateful members of the House -- Marilyn Musgrave in Colorado and Virgil Goode in Virginia -- appear to have lost. The defeat of Proposition 8 in California would be an ideal way to cap the night.

More generally, this is a smashing repudiation of the hideous right-wing faction that has wreaked so much damage on the country, and an obviously historic night as well. But this is merely the first step, with much work remaining, for reversing what has been done over the last eight years.

__________

Gary Kamiya (11:47 p.m. EST): Do you believe in miracles? Yes!

I'm hosting a party right now. Like so many people, I had to be with family and friends tonight. Some things must be shared with the people you love. We're in a state of delirium, disbelief and joy. We knew since Ohio was called that he was going to win, but that was abstract. When they finally called it for Obama, the dam broke loose.

So many years of pain and exile and frustration ended. So much hope released. A black man president! A progressive, smart, compassionate man! And after George W. Bush! Only in America could this wild reversal take place. America, your possibilities are restored.

When it was clear Obama was going to win I spoke to my mother, who is 78 years old, who didn't dare to believe even this morning, and when I heard her voice I started to cry. My son called from Sarah Lawrence, and I couldn't hear his voice, the students gathered under their big tent were so loud. Young people are celebrating everywhere. Youth is here. We have made history. We, the people. My people. Our people.

The laughter and the shouts are echoing up from downstairs, and all across the world.

__________

Joan Walsh (11:35 p.m. EST): John McCain just conceded to Barack Obama, "the next president of the country that we both love."

It was a nice speech, even acknowledging the death of Obama's grandmother. He recognized the historic importance of Obama's victory, and "the special significance that it has for African Americans, and the special pride that must be theirs tonight."

That hit me wrong: A lot of us have a special pride tonight. A lot of people have made eradicating the stain of racism their life's work. A lot of people saw the promise of Obama's candidacy for our country. A little more respect for Obama during the campaign would have gone a long way, but it was a fairly classy speech -- punctuated by a few unfortunate boos and "Nobamas" along the way.

The body language between him and Sarah Palin was interesting, she was standing so far away, I didn't realize she was there for a while. They barely hugged after his speech. Todd was right this morning, they'll be back in Wasilla tomorrow. But not for long, I predict.

__________

David Talbot (11:15 p.m. EST): The Bernal Heights neighborhood of San Francisco has erupted with wild cheers, blasting car horns, firecrackers. A racially mixed crowd has poured into the streets, including my teenage sons, Joe and Nat, and their white and black friends. Someone is blaring Sam Cooke's "A Change is Gonna Come" out the window of their house. A change HAS come, America. It's all of our country again. Over and out. I'm joining the crowds.

__________

Joan Walsh (11:14 p.m. EST): Chris Matthews is giving me a tingle up my leg right now. Really.

I criticized him for the way he treated Hillary Clinton during the primary, and there's no doubt he was unfair to both Clintons. But sometimes, when he goes off, it's awesome, and he just went off on the meaning of Barack Obama as president, and Michelle as first lady, and Malia and Sasha as the children in the White House that was, well, lovely.

NBC just called it for Obama.

__________

Joan Walsh (11 p.m. EST): OK, we've mainly been watching MSNBC but my friends watching CNN -- particularly my friend kressskin, who's drunk-blogging election night for us -- keeps talking about various CNN "holograms." I thought they were joking. Now I'm watching will.i.am as a hologram, made to appear like he's in the studio with Anderson Cooper. He's standing in a little pool of light, looking not quite there, like a Star Trek character in the middle of being beamed up. It's horrifying, and not just because I was creeped out by will.i.am's "We are the Ones" -- he should have stopped with "Yes We Can."

Anderson ends the interview by saying, "Thank you for being with us via hologram." This is creeping me out. If the folks at Fox see this, they'll blame Obama and think it's hologram socialism. This is not change I can believe in. Please stop, CNN!

Gee, I thought Palin's fans were the GOP base. Is Barnes hallucinating back to the days when the GOP was the party of Episcopalian Rockefeller bankers? If the GOP follows Barnes' advice and decides that Palin's people are the future of the Republican Party, its long exile in the wilderness will be even longer. Because the working-class values-and-resentment voters are outnumbered, and the imbalance is only going to get worse. Statistically, Joe Sixpack is becoming a Democrat.

__________

Joan Walsh (10:37 p.m. EST): Fred Barnes is mad at the way the media treated Sarah Palin. In fact, I think he's mad at you, David Talbot. He's complaining that news organizations sent reporters to Alaska but ignored Joe Biden. I think you should get yourself to Delaware tomorrow.

I think Barnes will be on his way to Wasilla to comfort his snow queen. Jane Mayer's story about the role of Barnes and Bill Kristol in Palin's choice will haunt me forever. They were smitten, and they still are, but now they're sad. I think they're selling Palin 2012 T-shirts on the Weekly Standard Web site.

__________

David Talbot (10:35 p.m. EST): I love that McCain and his entourage are holed up in the "Barry Goldwater Suite" at the Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix. Very fitting considering tonight's emerging electoral map. 

__________

Glenn Greenwald (10:27 p.m. EST): The Republican Party's devolution into a regional party of the South takes a big step forward (or backwards, actually) as CNN projects that Connecticut's 10-term Rep. Chris Shays -- the last GOP member of Congress in New England -- has been defeated.

__________

Joan Walsh (10:25 p.m. EST): With Obama's wins in Ohio, New Mexico and Iowa, we don't see a road to 270 electoral votes for John McCain, and so we're calling the election for Barack Obama. We know the networks (except CBS) decided not to do that, and we understand that decision. We're not the networks, and we feel like it's our job to report the news as we gather it. Obama's early, decisive win in the East Coast and Midwest, on top of his enormous lead in large mountain and West Coast states, is enormous news, and we're bringing it to you.

My only slight reservation is that there are still people who haven't voted (even in Dade County, Fla.), and there are state and local candidates and ballot initiatives out west that still matter. (The No on Prop. 8 campaign is dear to my heart.) But I think the early recognition that Obama has won, and McCain has lost, can cut in many ways, and the story of an apparent Obama landslide has to be told.

I didn't do justice to Obama's victory in Ohio when I wrote about it earlier. I remember when the networks called it for Bush, it was around 1 a.m., and there was so much confusion about voter suppression and possible fraud, we didn't entirely believe it. The entire election came down to 118,000 votes in Ohio, and it wasn't called until the day after Election Day. Tonight's outcome, while the polls are still open out West, is just stunning. When Hillary Clinton carried the state, many feared Obama could never have her appeal with the state's working class white Democrats (or Pennsylvania's either). Obama's early win in both states is amazing. That crowd in Chicago's Grant Park knows the truth. And so does the one at the Phoenix Biltmore. We'd be silly not to acknowledge it.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (10:15 p.m. EST): Surveying down-ballot races involving some of the worst super-villains, Michelle Bachmann's race looks very close with roughly 15 percent of the vote in. Robin Hayes looks very likely on his way to defeat in North Carolina ("liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God," Hayes recently said, then lied and denied he said it before he realized it was recorded).

In Pennsylvania, both Chris Carney and non-villain Jack Murtha are leading their races by fairly sizable margins, as are Blue Dogs Jim Marshall and John Barrow in Georgia. Despite all the fear-mongering from the Right about the scary Far Leftists about to be unleashed, many of the new Democratic arrivals in the Senate -- Kay Hagan, the Udalls, Mark Warner -- are quite "moderate," as are huge numbers of new House members. The one (very small) consolation for Republicans: Even if Franken wins Minnesota, it seems certain that Democrats will fall short of their 60-vote filibuster-proof goal.

__________

__________

Joan Walsh, 9:30 p.m. EST: Ohio. Wow. Well, as the designated worrier, the most cautious blogger on the team, the person who's said, "Hey, wait a minute" all day long -- actually, going back to the Democratic primary -- I don't see how Obama doesn't win this.

Carl Cameron is doing a post-mortem with Nicolle Wallace on Fox. I think it's because Brit Hume is too verklempt to anchor.

__________

David Talbot (9:24 p.m. EST): Priceless. A funereal Brit Hume and equally somber Karl Rove call Ohio for Obama. "No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio," observes a deeply gloomy Rove.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (9:23 p.m. EST): Fox just projected Ohio for Obama -- right when Brit Hume was standing next to Karl Rove and Rove was explaining how McCain can't lose any more battleground states. "No Republican has ever been elected without winning the state of Ohio," Rove pouted.

Florida looks good for Obama, too -- would be very appropriate if the two states that put George Bush into the White House are turned blue.

It's virtually impossible to see how Obama loses now.

__________

Joan Walsh (9:20 p.m. EST): Back to a little bit of pins and needles: The early signs all look good for Obama in both Florida and North Carolina, which really might mean it is over for McCain. But none of the networks is calling either state. Fox has called New Mexico for Obama, but only Fox. McCain hasn't lost any red states yet, but on MSNBC, former McCain staffer Mike Murphy just told Rachel Maddow: "Well, the night is young yet." Murphy thinks Florida looks good for Obama. Virginia could stay red, however. Stay tuned.

_____________

David Talbot (9:06 p.m. EST): You gotta love Chris Matthews, calling Tom "The Hammer" DeLay a hater to his face on MSNBC, for predicting the imminent decline and fall of American civilization. As the camera cut away from the fallen GOP strongman, he sputtered, "I don't hate." To which a chuckling Matthews replied, "How about resent, are you OK with that?"

_____________

Joan Walsh (9 p.m. EST): Vermin Watch: Tom DeLay was just on MSNBC (why, Chris, why?) saying Nancy Pelosi, not Barack Obama, is the country's most powerful Democrat. "They'll probably double the minimum wage in the next six months. They're gonna run circles around Barack Obama! Nancy Pelosi will get her way and do whatever she wants to do!" Is somebody scared of women?

Matthews to DeLay: "I like the way you hate, sir!"

_____________

Glenn Greenwald (8:58 pm EST): A sign of how devastated the GOP is: the Fox panel is now actively considering whether this is no longer a "center-right country," but instead is now a "center-left country" -- the topic we focused on here earlier today. They're feeling so defeated, so repudiated, that they are on the verge of relinquishing one of their most central articles of faith.

This one's for you, Al.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (8:44 p.m. EST): HILARIOUS:

At 8:25 pm, Kathryn Jean Lopez excitedly announced that Fox News genius Michael Barone "threw cold water" on the other networks' projections that Obama won Pennsylvania.

Three minutes later -- three minutes -- she had to go back and post that even Fox has now called Pennsylvania for Obama.

Around 7:00 pm, I was hating today and wishing it were over. Now I hope it goes on for another 15 hours or so.

__________

Joan Walsh (8:40 pm EST): MSNBC just called the North Carolina Senate race for Democrat Kay Hagen. There is a God, and she didn't like Elizabeth Dole's "Godless" ad. North Carolina still looks good for Obama, too.

__________

David Talbot (8:30 p.m. EST): Oh, my God, did you all just hear what Ann Curry on MSNBC said? Even most white voters in North Carolina for whom "race was a factor" went for Obama. This isa new America.

__________

David Talbot (8:22 p.m. EST): Another reason to be a proud American tonight: Obama matched McCain among white voters in Pennsylvania, significantly outperforming Kerry's tally four years ago. So much for the Bradley effect. This country continues to be an inspiring social experiment.

__________

Paul Maslin (8:15 p.m. EST): Race is definitely over. Florida looking good for Obama, though Panhandle and Jacksonville yet to be heard from. He's winning 3 to 1 in college towns Durham and Chapel Hill -- very good chance of winning NC. Nothing in yet from suburban DC or Tidewater area (heavily black) in VA -- expect those numbers to reverse very soon. Indiana could be an incredible cliffhanger.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (8:13 p.m. EST): For those hungry for a nice schadenfreude orgy, it's now getting very safe to turn to Fox. Bill Kristol -- after Fox projected NH for Obama -- just said, very somberly, that it's going to be a very bad night for Republicans and that between this election and 2006, it's one of the worst two-year periods for any political party, and Fred Barnes looks like he's about to cry. And there's still plenty of bad news for them to come.

The funereal aura is starting to set in over there. Concentrate on how much destruction they've sown and it will be quite pleasurable to watch.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (8:09 p.m. EST): Fox just called North Carolina for Kay Hagan (good-riddance Elizabeth Dole) and called Kentucky for McConnell. That means that Democrats will probably need to win Georgia (Saxby Chambliss/Jim Martin) in order to get to the filibuster-proof 60 number.

___________

David Talbot (8:08 p.m. EST): This is not good for my blood pressure. I'm watching the despicable Ken Blackwell, Ohio's former secretary of state, who helped deliver his state to Bush four years ago by suppressing fellow African-American voters. He's of course predicting a big win for McCain in Ohio tonight. But he's not going to be able to sabotage democracy this time. As Pennsylvania goes, so goes the nation.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (8:07 p.m. EST): I wouldn't say that the race is over if McCain loses Pennsylvania -- as MSNBC is projecting he has (and John King just implied) -- but it's all but over. What's the realistic scenario for McCain to win? Assuming Obama (a) wins every other Kerry state and (b) wins NM, CO and IA (and I think everyone agrees he will), then it's over. Add to that all of the other states Obama could win but wouldn't need to (VA, FL, OH, NC, NV, GA, MO, AZ, MT, SD), and you'd have to say that McCain's chances without PA is next to zero.

__________

Joan Walsh (8:03 p.m. EST): MSNBC is calling Pennsylvania and New Hampshire for Obama. There is great debate here at Team Salon SF about whether it is over. I say no. I'm in the minority.

__________

Paul Maslin (7:52 p.m. EST): Worst case Indiana will be a very narrow loss (1-2 pts) for Obama -- Indianapolis results are coming in, but nothing yet from Lake County. Obama has also won Mecklenburg County (Charlotte) by a huge margin, which bodes well for NC and may suggest huge African-American turnout. On the other hand, rural whites in KY are going big for McCain.

After 2000, I would have thought they'd learned their lesson about affecting the outcome of elections with their premature calls. Apparently not.

_______

Glenn Greenwald (7:41 p.m. EST): This is what all of you should try hard to avoid.

_______

Paul Maslin (7:35 p.m. EST): The exit poll and real time data suggests nothing different than what I thought going in -- a big Obama and Democratic victory. The only question is how big -- with Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina in the balance and two or three senate seats that could be the difference between 58 and 60 or 61. So far it seems to be the bigger of the options. Indiana has nothing in yet from the Urban NW or Indianapolis.

_______

Glenn Greenwald (7:33 pm EST): One of the most rapidly updated and thorough places online to obsessively follow returns as they come in seems to be here, where you can not only follow the returns in real time, but also see from which counties the returns are coming. In Indiana, for instance, the vote total has been and continues to be very close, though two huge Obama counties -- Marion (Indianapolis) and Lake (Gary), as well as Bloomington (a very pro-Obama college town) -- have not reported anything yet (though there are also undoubtedly many pro-McCain counties that haven't either). That seems to bode well for Obama, since he's running more or less even in pro-McCain territory.

On CNN, everyone was sitting around heaping praise on Howard Dean and giving him immense credit for how he revitalized the Democratic Party organizationally, with a particular focus on his previously controversial 50-state strategy. Suddenly, Bill Bennett mentioned that James Carville had previously called for Dean to be fired a mere two years ago (Carville: "I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence"), and Carville became very defensive and angry and insisted (as Beltway members in good standing always do) that he was actually right.

__________

digby (7:29 p.m. EST): Has anyone tuned in to the financial network gasbags today? For a minute, I thought I was watching the Christian Broadcasting Network -- Armageddon is at hand.<</p>

Apparently, that Marxist terrorist Obama is going to take all their hard earned money and use it to destroy capitalism. Who knew?

__________

Joan Walsh (7:25 p.m. EST): Here's what Nate Silver has to say about Indiana:

Just looking at some of the places where we have results in so far. Obama is substantially outperforming Kerry -- which is what he needs to do to win the state, of course, but the differences are pretty substantial.

Steuben: Kerry 34%, Obama 42%

DeKalb: Kerry 31%, Obama 38%

Knox: Kerry 36%, Obama 54%

Marshall: Kerry 31%, Obama 50%

If that holds, it will be huge for Obama.

__________

Gary Kamiya (7:09 p.m. EST): The hour has tolled, it's after 7 pm EST, and a wave of returns is about to break. Virginia could tell the whole tale. The waiting all day has been agonizing. Everyone I talk to is about to lose it. You can feel the whole country, the whole world, holding its breath. It's like a hundred World Series game sevens or Super Bowls rolled into one. I'm almost clinging to the banality of watching the talking heads going on and on about minutiae because it's too hard to think about this except as a horse race. It's too big. It's like waiting for a cancer prognosis -- or the answer to a marriage proposal.

__________

Rebecca Traister (6:56 p.m. EST): Signs that everything in the world is turning inside out (in a good way!) this fine November day: It's Election Day at 6:25 pm, and on MSNBC, Chris Matthews is loving him some Hillary Clinton. Talking to Harold Ford Jr., Matthews has just argued that Clinton, his perennial hobgoblin, and the politician he seemed intent on chasing out of this presidential race from day one, played a key role in Barack Obama's (still hypothetical, yet-imaginary, and very much jinx-able) victory. Yes, he's really saying it! Again and again!

"Starting with her rather dramatic departure at the National Building Museum," said Matthews, "that dramatic close -- a bit late I would argue [ed note: and you did argue it! Often!] -- then giving that really positive speech in Denver...I have a sense that she shut down the PUMA movement pretty well." People who were what Matthews called "real Democrats" came around to Obama in part thanks to Clinton, Matthews argued.

Ford laughed and agreed. "I have to think she helped in Pennsylvania, I have to think she helped in Florida."

Not 20 minutes later, Matthews was asking former Clinton backer, governor Ed Rendell how powerful the New York Senator's presence had been in Pennsylvania. "Hillary did an extraordinary job with her presence throughout this state," said Rendell, noting that "the Clinton feminist voters are all for Barack. The working class blue-collar white voters [who backed Clinton]...they're gonna split."

Matthews was tickled! "It's very interesting what you just said -- that women who care about women's issues -- choice, minimum wage, equal pay -- Hillary delivered that vote," he said. As for the blue collar voters, Matthews conceded, "to bring them all over was a hard job for her."

I always suspected that pundits would be talking about Clinton on November 4, but it's quite a pleasant surprise to hear them giving her credit for busting her ass for Obama, rather than trying to lay any blame at her feet.

Last night on the special "Saturday Night Live" Presidential Bash, there was a sketch from earlier this year in which Amy Poehler imitated a late-spring Clinton as a craven competitor who vows to be a sore loser and not help Obama in the general election. The skit was hitting such a sour, wrong note in light of Clinton's third-limb commitment to the Obama-Biden ticket in this late summer and fall, that it was a tremendous relief to see it interrupted by a (pre-taped and still very pregnant) Poehler, in Hillary character, laughing and laughing, cutting the sketch short, and essentially saying: We were all wrong about her.

And even more remarkable to see people admitting it.

__________

David Sirota (6:40 p.m. EST): Just got back from a little tour of polling places and Obama field operations. Basically, the word is that in Denver -- the most populous county in this swing state -- there have been little problems with long lines because so many people have voted early or by mail. Seems to me making it as easy to do those things in other states is a good way to deal with what Rachel Maddow calls the 21st century poll tax of long lines.

If the reporting from Pennsylvania is correct, it's a big Obama win. Howard Fineman on MSNBC is saying that a lot of local pols told him the last minute GOP use of Rev. Wright backfired. We'll be pulling apart the Pennsylvania results for a long time, if these numbers hold.

I will wait until tomorrow to say how rewarding it is to watch Gov. Ed Rendell and Mayor Michael Nutter just kick ass on behalf of Barack Obama, just like we knew they would, even though they were Clinton supporters. Talk of how the extended Clinton run would destroy the party was, ahem, really...well, I'll save that for later.

__________

David Talbot (6:42 p.m. EST): I like what Chris Matthews said in response to Pat Buchanan, when the old culture warrior asserted on MSNBC that if Obama wins big, he won't have the same mandate that someone like Reagan did in 1980. Not true, said Matthews. A pro-Obama vote is a vote for a more vigorous and more competent government -- a government that is capable of delivering on healthcare and energy and that can build roads and bridges. The kind of government we once had -- you know, before Reagan.

__________

David Talbot (6:30 p.m. EST): Tonight promises to bring many moments of deep satisfaction. But perhaps one of the most pleasurable is the prospect of neverhaving to gaze on the revolting Cheshire grin of Joe Lieberman again, as he flanks John McCain onstage at rally after rally. The election results should soon wipe the grin off Joe-the-Traitor's face. And the wide Democratic margin in the Senate should render him completely irrelevant.

__________

Joan Walsh (6:10 p.m. EST): That Virginia late-decider number is a little scary, but otherwise it looks good.

But I'm going to step away from the computer and television for 15 minutes to grab the lunch I forgot to eat.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (5:55 p.m. EST): Exit polls from Fox:

White men

Indiana: McCain -- 54-44

Ohio: McCain -- 63-36

Virginia: McCain -- 58-39

Howard Wolfson said that, in 2004, Bush won white men in Virginia by 40 points, so Obama was cutting that margin in half. Obviously, "white men" is, demographically speaking, one of the best groups for McCain.

New voters

Indiana: Obama -- 73-27

Ohio: Obama -- 69-31

Virginia: Obama -- 63-36

Late deciders

Indiana: Obama 53-45

Ohio: Obama 54-39

Virginia: McCain 55-44

Young voters (nationwide)

Obama: 69-28

New voters

Obama: 72-27 (nationwide)

Obama: 63-36 (Virginia)

Independents (Indiana)

Obama: 56-41

Indiana independents sided with Bush in 2004

Clinton Democrats (Ohio)

Obama: 82-16

See the post below regarding the irrelevance of exit polls. I'm posting them in the spirit of full information, letting you decide what to do with it.

__________

Joan Walsh (5:50 p.m. EST): Am I the only one who's too nervous right now to blog about what this Obama win means?

__________

Gary Kamiya (5:40 pm EST): MSNBC just reported the first exit polls (of priorities, not votes). 62% of voters polled said the economy was their biggest concern, 10% the war in Iraq, 9% for terrorism. What's interesting is that only 35% said they approve of the war in Iraq (that has to be one of the lowest figures ever) while 71% said they were concerned about terrorism. Besides the economy, this is one of the biggest reasons that Obama stands on the verge of a landslide: the voters have totally rejected the GOP's specious claim that the war in Iraq is the "front line of the war on terror."

__________

Glenn Greenwald (5:40 pm EST): Marc Ambinder has the first batch of exit poll numbers. Read and trust at your own peril. For numerous reasons, the rational thing to do is to ignore them, or at least assume they're inaccurate. And according to Fox, exit polls reveal that a paltry 38% think Sarah Palin is qualified.

And while I'm at it, three cheers for the voters of my home state, California, and other states where lopsided polls rendered voters completely invisible to the presidential campaigns. Despite being completely ignored by the campaigns, voters here are turning out in record numbers. At my polling place in San Francisco, poll workers told me they've never seen turnout numbers like today's.

__________

Joan Walsh (4:40 p.m. EST): If this is all getting too heavy for you, and you need some sweetness, check out Rebecca Traister and Caitlin Shamberg's awesome video about kids "voting" for Obama at a polling place in Brooklyn.

I'm sure Fox will follow up and accuse them of voter fraud.

My little girl, by the way, cast her first presidential vote in the Bronx today, for Obama (she's a freshman at Fordham). She, too, loved pulling the lever! There's no voting like New York voting.

__________

Gary Kamiya (4:33 p.m. EST): David, I totally agree that if Obama wins, he should claim a progressive mandate. But if he also figures out a way to reach out to McCain supporters, that would be a win-win.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (4:26 pm EST): Atrios wrote:

Intellectually I'm fairly confident that tonight will turn out well, though emotionally I'm starting to waver.

I wonder how many Obama supporters would say the same? The vast, vast majority, I'd bet.

I didn't really have that sensation until I heard Sarah Palin this morning confidently proclaim that she expects to wake up tomorrow as "Vice-President-elect." I know the confidence she's projecting is contrived, but still, that wicked phrase sits with you in the dark recesses of your brain.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (4:19 p.m. EST): Joan -- I've been watching Fox much of the day (in Brazil, where I am today, one can only view Fox and, intermittently, CNN-U.S. (it's interspersed with CNN-International).

There is one message from Fox being repeated all day, and Karl Rove just did his part to bolster it: African-Americans aren't merely voting in droves, but are cheating and stealing the election for Obama. As part of that segment you described, Rove just "informed" Fox viewers not only that there are more registered voters than adults in Philadelphia (and made the same claim about Milwaukee), but also that voting precincts are in the homes and "barber shops" of Democratic ward leaders, that there are already votes in the voting machines before the day begins, that ACORN criminals control the process in many large cities, etc.

Obama is going to take away the white people's money and give it to African-Americans with a new welfare program, and to make sure it happens, whites are being cheated and intimidated out of their vote. The endlessly looped Black Panther video ("intimidating white voters from voting") provides the perfect visual aid to this claim.

__________

Joan Walsh (4:02 p.m. EST): Oh dear God, I took Glenn's advice and tuned to Fox, and they're endlessly showing video of "Black Panthers" allegedly intimidating voters outside a polling place in Philly. Two guys from the New Black Panther Party, one with a nightstick, were outside, and Fox got its cameras. They missed nightstick guy, but they got the other guy, looking like, well, a Black Panther sort, and they got what they needed.

Right after that, Karl Rove appeared to accuse Lake County, Ind. (dominated by the city of Gary) of getting ready to commit voter fraud for Obama, saying the county wouldn't commit to a voter tally until it was clear what Obama needed. (I wasn't taking notes, my jaw dropped.)

Back to MSNBC.

__________

Gary Kamiya (4:02 p.m. EST): Hi fellow party crashers on Joan's blog, fun to be chatting with you all. I'm going to play devil's advocate here and read McCaskill's comments about Obama reaching out to McCain supporters and working with Republicans in a little more sanguine way. First, let me say that I agree with David and Glenn on the substance of their remarks. We're all only too familiar with cowering Democrats abandoning their positions and principles out of deference to some imagined public backlash if they dare to deviate from the alleged "center-right" nature of the country. And I suppose that McCaskill's remarks (which I didn't see) could be interpreted as an early warning shot fired across Obama's bow. If that's what they are, it's more of the tiresome same.

But I think her comments could also be seen as less pointed, as more abstract, and as in the generous bipartisan spirit that Obama has consistently evoked. Bipartisanship can mean selling out, but it can also mean trying to bring people together -- and be effective. Sure, there's probably no way to bring members of the GOP base together with Obama supporters. But there are many McCain supporters who are not part of the Republican base. Obama's appeal has always been that he will be able to both pursue a progressive agenda and unify the country (as much as possible.) I hope I'm not being a kumbaya singer to say that would be a good thing.

It's all about what he actually does. A lot of this is about salesmanship and rhetoric, the presidential persona he projects. I believe that after his election (knock on wood) Obama needs to immediately and aggressively pursue a progressive agenda, from an ambitious deficit-financed infrastructure-rebuilding project that the right will call a Commie rerun of the New Deal to a new energy policy to changing course on Iraq and start walking back his hawkish Afghanistan position. But how he sells all this is critical. From a purely pragmatic view, it's easier to be an effective leader if you aren't immediately caricatured as the second coming of Karl Marx. Not that the right won't do that anyway. But let's wait and see. Like so many things about Obama, it's hard to read his bipartisan message and image. I'm choosing to be optimistic that he's going to be progressive AND bipartisan.

__________

digby (3:59 p.m. EST): Joan, the Ambrose Evans-Pritchard thing is hilarious. Back in the day, when there was only Drudge (and Salon, thank God) the Republicans routinely laundered their smears through the British press. It's fitting that Evans-Pritchard would reappear just when the mainstream media has finally figured out that Drudge is a right-wing hack. (Or perhaps they always knew it and have just discovered that being led around by a right-wing hack is no longer fashionable.)

As for why the socialist tag has been more eagerly accepted this time out, I think it's a combination of the image of a Marxist black militant and the fact that the Republican base is restive and the commie threat speaks directly to the conservative lizard brain -- always has. It's a tribal signal.

And you bet this is going to be used as a cudgel to narrow the options for a Democratic government. As Sirota has documented, we are already seeing a full court press from the timorous villagers and the fiscal scolds to limit the parameters of the debate and shrink the mandate to a cramped center-right agenda.The conservatives will perform their role by staging regular hissy fits, which the press will find irresistible, and the new Dem "moderates" and the Blue Dogs will try to assert their dominance by showing that they are "mavericks" (which is defined, as we know, by how much you buck your own party).

Obama has his hands full, both in terms of the huge problems the country faces and a political system that is fractured into sharp shards that all fall in ways that threaten any kind of bold change. Luckily, he is a great politician with intelligence and excellent instincts. He's going to need them.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (3:27 p.m. EST): In 2006, the Republicans suffered one of the worst defeats in a mid-term election in the last century. The conservative movement's standard-bearer, George Bush, is -- as The Washington Post just put it this week -- "the most disliked president since polling on the question began in the 1930s." In the 2008 election, Democrats are favored to win the Presidency (with a person claimed, absurdly, to be the "most left-wing member of the U.S. Senate) and sweep a couple of dozen GOP incumbents (at least) out of the House, while in the Senate, the only real question is whether they will have a filibuster-proof majority.

So what does all of that mean to Beltway platitude-spouters? As David Sirota noted earlier, it means (of course) that conservatism is as strong as ever, and that the U.S. is -- all together now -- a "center-right country":

__________

Paul Maslin (2:35 p.m. EST): Sense here in Wisconsin is that turnout is hovering around the 2004 level -- which was a very high 76% and will be extremely hard to best given all the effort that went into Kerry plus same day registration. Early voting is up in Milwaukee among African-Americans. It may be that some Republicans have stayed home.

__________

Glenn Greenwald (2:31 pm EST): It's fairly miserable waking up with the expectation and glee that the election will finally be over, only to then have to wait 12 hours before being fed even a morsel of meaningful news. The only information worth considering before then are turnout reports, which can only be anecdotal and thus unreliable.

Still, a consensus seems to be emerging that turnout in heavily Democratic and African-American areas in key states is huge -- even larger than expected. Michael Steele, who tends to be a hard-core GOP loyalist, even just acknowledged that, and in the state I'd say is the most important right now, Pennsylvania, that seems to be especially true.

I'm not making this up. Here's the key exchange:

FOX: If [Obama] wins tonight, what do you expect to happen Wednesday, Thursday, Friday from a President-elect Obama? MCCASKILL: He will surprise America how quickly he will try to reach out to the millions of people who are voting for John McCain today -- and the milions of people who have questions about his leadership. He'll want to reassure them, and he'll want to find Republicans to work with him in his cabinet. FOX: You don't predict it's going to be "we have a mandate, we're going to govern from the left"? You think it's going to be more of a bipartisan let's sort of heal and bring everbody together? MCCASKILL: He will pleasantly surprise everyone who votes for John McCain today.

Ummm...what about the millions of people who, ya know, voted for Obama? Don't we count for something? I mean McCaskill's statement is really not encouraging for the millions of voters who are supporting Obama because he's a self-described progressive Democrat. And while McCaskill's message is shrouded in the argot of conciliation, it's not merely a co