If you happened to be watching the end of The Biggest Loser on NBC last night, you would have been interrupted by an even bigger loser - Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts. She had to concede a loss to Scott Brown for the empty Senate seat left by the late Edward "Ted" Kennedy.

The writing was on the wall weeks ago for this one. Much of the analysis from the Left has been that Coakley just ran a bad campaign and was a bad candidiate. But the Right is trying to turn this into a referendum on Obama; no surprise there. Look, Coakley was a moderate Democrat with little to no legislative experience as Attorney General and a country District Attorney before that. She had a voice that sounded more upper midwest than South Boston. She was quoted as saying she didn't need to "stand outside of Fenway park" to get votes and in an ad, her campaign misspelled the very state in which she was running. She even called legendary Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt "Bloody Sock" Shilling a Yankee fan for Christ's sake!  The "perfect storm" culminated with a disinterested electorate which had previously gone for Obama by 61% in the 2008 election, and also 3-4 inches of wet, slushy snow that basically made people who didn't care stay home. She must have known her chances weren't good when most people's first response to who they were going to vote for started with "I don't really like her but..."

However, I think there are actually even bigger losers out there than Coakley herself; the people of Massachusetts. Look, I was born and raised in that state and I know enough about local politics to know its not as liberal as most of the rest of the country thinks. But this election wasn't decided on "the issues" no matter how much someone tells you it was. Scott Brown truly is a "regular guy" who drives a pickup and has a family. But that's no excuse for the fact that he is a full fledged conservative Republican who will stop at nothing to block Obama's forward looking agenda.  I heard on a radio show last night that voters don't want to be told they are stupid, that they don't want to be lectured to.  Well, when you elect a jackass who goes against everything you previously thought right, you should be lectured. You don't get to vote for change when change is happening right now. You can not vote for independence when that guy is nothing but a tool of the Republican obstruction machine. And you don't get to stay home for this one. As a said before, a vote for Coakley wasn't a vote for her, it was a vote for the forward looking progressive policies and a vote away from the disasterous, failed policies of the late 20th Century and early 21st Century conservatives. Finally, you don't get to destroy the legacy of one of the greatest senators who ever served and then claim you were doing it all in the name of independence.

And that's why the Biggest Loser is actually the millions of people both home and abroad who will continue to be forced to listen to the Party of No. The citizens who have to give credence to people who can't seem to think about anything but themselves. The people who think because they have health insurance through their employer, thats good enough for everyone. The same people who think that tax breaks for the rich will somehow once again prove that trickle-down economics isn't the sham it truly is. We are all losers now.

p.s. There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon. Its that this could make the Democratic leadership wake up and realize that they don't actually need 60 votes to pass legislation. It just takes a little leadership and courage to do what the majority of Americans want to do and go in a direction we've already decided a year ago. However, quotes like this from party leaders do not inspire hope, indeed.

UPDATE: Figured I'd add some perspective to this. Some good reads:

Ezra Klein on why Obama needs to move away from Clinton era tactics.

Matthew Yglesias injects some realistic analysis.

Mark Schmitt on how the 60 vote threshold was an illusion.

And finally a quote from Ted Kennedy that's making the rounds this morning:

"If the Democrats run for cover, if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose -- and deserve to lose. The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties."

"The liberal agenda" is a phrase often used by conversations to scare the pants off their own supporters. And they're right! They should be scared. The liberal agenda was voted on in November of 2008 and won squarely. I'm not one to claim a mandate on political agendas, nor even willing to claim the majority gets to overun a country, but the clear, resounding result, was the vote for change and a vote for progressive policy and ideals that say to your neighbor, "where are you hurting?" and "what can I do for you today? You can argue whether that change has come about yet, but you cannot argue that is exactly what happened in the last election cycle.

Fast forward to 2010 and there is a heated battle for the Senate seat left by the late Ted Kennedy. The only reason this is even a close race is because the state Democrats put forth a seriously questionable candidate in Martha Coakley. No matter, I say.  The alternate is Scott Brown, a self-proclaimed independent who is anything but.  Scott Brown should lose for the following two reasons:

1. He can't claim a campaign of change when the "other" party just won on the same idea, resoundingly, and Brown's ideals are exactly opposite of that change.
2. His whole campaign platform boils down to one word, two characters; "NO."  He has stated that he will, for all intents and purposes, fight tooth and nail and vote against everything the Democrats want.

If there are any liberals out there who are upset with the current leadership in D.C., I can tell you for sure that I feel your pain. The current health care bill is far too moderate in how it does what it attempts to do. Having President Obama publically proclaim "bipartisanship" a key point in negotiations over legislation when the other party refuses to negotiate is a sore spot for me as well.

However, a vote for Martha Coakley isn't a vote for yourself, or even for the citizens of Massachusetts. Its a vote for liberal and progressive ideals that America has been striving and moving toward all our lives. Racial tensions may not have disappeared, and people may die for lack of adequate healthcare, but on balance we are becoming a better society than we were 20, 50 or even 200 years ago.

I ask you to accept the imperfect candiate and look foward beyond your own interests. Its challenging to consider the delicate balance between "how does this help others" versus "what is in it for me," but it is high time we move toward the former and away from the latter.

Please vote for Martha Coakley on Jan 19th.

Today, the Boston Globe officially endorsed Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, for US Senate.  The special election, to be held January 19, will fill the seat of the late Edward Kennedy.  The Globe does a wonderful job of making the case for Coakley.

First the ever-wise right wing criticized President Obama for his speech to America's school children on the importance of staying in school.  They said it was an attempt to "indoctrinate" children with his politics.  Maybe they were right to do so.  Few issues are as partisan as young children getting an education and its certainly not the President's place to encourage our nation's youngsters to maximize their potential.  And I'm sure countless presidential elections have been swung based on the 6-10 year old voting block.

Now the GOP is on the President's case regarding his trip to Copenhagen to lobby the IOC on behalf of his home city, Chicago.  The RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, said it was a distraction to the more pressing business at hand, such as Afghanistan and health care.  Irony over the latter notwithstanding, it just shows how clueless and desparate the GOP is at this time.

Look folks, just because our last President was a complete moron doesn't mean this one can only handle one thing at a time.  I'm pretty sure he didn't sleep the entire flight overseas and was dealing with our nation's business.  And to borrow a phrase from SNL's Seth Meyers...really, Michael Steele?  Really?  You really want to criticize the President for trying to help the nation's third largest city get the Olympics?  Would you rather those jobs and economic boost go to Rio?  Madrid?  I wonder how Michael Steele would feel about the President lobbying the IOC if it was Baltimore who was up for consideration?

We can all expect Republicans to continue to torpedo meaningful health care reform but can't we all agree that it would be great for Chicago to host the Olympics?  Apparently not in 2009, when cutting off the nose to spite the face is the GOP's only play in the playbook.

Ted Kennedy is going to be eulogized in a lot of places today and by writers a lot better than me.  But I would be remiss if I did not use this space to say goodbye to one of the most influential lawmakers in United States history.

His legislative record is legendary and quite possibly beyond compare.  And not the cheap stuff either.  We're talking civil rights, voting rights, poverty, education, health care- the kind of legislation that has a profound effect on our society.  His passion for the causes for which he fought was matched only by his ability to make friends and cut deals with those who called themselves his political enemies inside the chamber and his friends outside it.  Ted Kennedy was a bastion of liberalism, but he also knew full well that nothing can be done in the US Senate without a willingness to take into account the other side's fundamental beliefs.  That is why you see his name on over 2500 pieces of legislation.

Ted Kennedy's life was also filled with more personal tragedy than one should ever have to endure.  He lost all three of his brothers, one of his sisters, two of his sons were stricken with cancer, and of course there was more death.  His nephew among others.  After his brothers' assassinations the weight of a family empire fell to him when he was only 36 years old and still in his first full term as Senator.

The pressure to fulfill the promise of John and Bobby; to have their presidential destiny thrust upon him had to torture Ted.  For he was never an ideal Presidential candidate.  Yet the Kennedy name and the legacies of his brothers hounded him until at last he gave it a shot in 1980.  And though he had accomplished so much up to that point I believe it was after running in '80 that he became more comfortable as Senator.  The United States and Massachusetts were better off for it.

Of course, the man had his flaws too.  Who among us does not?  Were his magnified because of his stature?  Possibly, but they cannot be overlooked.  He relentlessly drank and womanized as a young man.  The Chappaquiddick incident is a stain on his legacy that will never be removed, and well it should not be.  But he overcame these flaws by the sheer force of his personality and by the intense passion with which he went about his job.  The causes for which he fought never had a more determined advocate.  The downtrodden and working class never had a better friend.  And the Commonwealth of Massachusetts never had a more beloved public servant, which is why we sent him back to Washington every sixth year since 1964.

Being only 30 years old., I was not here to witness much of Senator Kennedy's historic career.  That said, the time I did have to watch and listen to this extraordinary Senator was more than enough to make him one of my political heroes.  He stood for every political ideal that I hold dear.

As a resident of Berkshire County in western Massachusetts I will never forget how Senator Kennedy always made time for our oft-forgotten part of the state.  Being two-plus hours west of Boston and having a small share of the state's population have never afforded the Berkshires much attention from the state house.  But Senator Kennedy's visits would always serve as a reminder that he never overlooked any part of his state or any group that needed his attention and energy.

Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy's senatorial accomplishments are historic, his personality legendary.  While our country is a lesser place today because of his death, it is also infinitely better because of his life.

My deepest sympathy to the Kennedy family.  Ted will be sorely missed.

I don't generally like to resort to finger pointer for hypocrisy...that is, unless its this blatant:

"[I am not] an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going." - Rick Warren, April 6 interview on CNN's Larry King Live talk show.

"Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear." - Rick Warren, Comments made to his congregation two weeks before the vote on Prop. 8.

If what you are doing is truly God's work, then shout it from the mountain tops. Better yet, come down off that mountain and talk to people face to face. Because the only thing worse than bigots are dishonest bigots.

If you would, let me add to what my colleague and friend Whoj said yesterday.  5 of us started this site with large, and fairly naive, post-college aspirations of changing the world and emerging from the early 21st Century blog craze with something special. It didn't happen (we just weren't that good) and the reelection of our 43rd President added cynicism to our young minds. 6 years later this site has become a hobby for most of us. But the passion for politics still exists deep in our hearts, because we recognize the impact that governments have on people's lives.

I don't think I'd ever say "President Barak Hussein Obama" in my lifetime. There will be great literature written about this period in our lives. I'm certain it won't simply be written about the fact that an African American with a Muslim name became President of the United States. It will also be about the next 4, and hopefully 8, years and the great things we accomplished as a nation. I couldn't be more happier to be a part of it.

Its been a long wait but The Day is almost here.

January 20, 2009 seemed so far away for so long that I don't know if I've properly acknowledged that its only four hours away.  But after all of the waiting, the frustration, the blood-boiling rage, its finally over.  George W. Bush's historically disasterous presidency is finally over.

I imagine this is how prisoners feel when they are in jail.  Because quite frankly, that is how I felt for most of this presidency.  Watching as he bungled one thing after another, how he force-fed this nation a far right wing agenda, how he in so many ways disgraced the Office of the President, it was as helpless as I have ever felt.  But now that is all over.

Over the past few months, as his approval ratings remained at all-time lows, I sometimes began to feel sorry for President Bush.  Then I remember.  I remember the ideology.  The arrogance.  The complete lack of far-sighted thinking that defined this man and his presidency.  And that is when I stop feeling sorry for him and start again to feel the joy of knowing that the United States will no longer be subject to such leadership.

Tomorrow it will all be different.  Tomorrow we will start anew.

The American Auto Industry is in trouble. They are currently asking the American people, via Congress, for what they term as "bridge loans," and for what others would term as "bailouts," in order to weather the current financial crisis and come out stable and healthy on the back end. What they seem to have become, however, is a public whipping post for both anyone concerned of their own political ambitions and anyone whose goal is union busting.

Congress asked the CEOs of the Big 3 to appear before Congress to outline their plans for this money. They were ridiculed, both understandibly, but also simply as a distraction, for taking private jets and for not having any concrete plans. So they came back, basically on their knees, driving their fuel efficient cars from their current lineup and presented more detailed plans. Click here for a good roundup of their individual plans.

American manufacturers are indeed in trouble.  They don't have enough cash on hand to pay out current liabilities through the next few months. Sales have decreased in light of the recession and sales forecasts for next year are dwindling. American manufacturers on the whole have a higher operating budget then their foreign counterparts and it is unquestionable that some restructuring will need to begin in order to be competitive in the next decade. But those costs are mostly borne from legacy decisions as the manufacturers have renegotiated current and future obligations with the UAW. Maybe it make sense for a merger so the Big 3 becomes the Big 2. Restructuring will certainly need to happen to lower costs and remove dealer networks which are simply too large.

Some would tell you that Detriot hasn't built a good, solid competitive car in decades. But this just isn't true. I attended the New England Auto Show this weekend and in my personal opinion the current and 2010 lineup from both Ford and GM is both impressive and competitive.  The Chevy Malibu, a bread and butter mid size sedan that competes with the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord in the largest segment in the U.S, just topped JD Power's Initial Quality Study. The Ford Fusion also topped that list and the 2010 model looks and feels just that much better.  Both GM and Ford already have hybrid versions of their mid-size vehicles.  Ford also plans to bring back the fuel efficient Fiesta to the states as part of its One Ford strategy which brings popular European models to the states.

What I find most appalling about the groveling is that when the financial industry needed a true bailout, the CEOs of these companies weren't required to appear before Congress and be belittled by members of Congress. Instead, they had explicit support from the federal government itself in the form of Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, who himself partially contributed to this mess as CEO of Goldman Sachs. If the current Treasury Secretary was a former CEO of an automotive company, don't you think that person would have appeared before Congress in support of these bridge loans?

The American Automotive Industry, both directly and indirectly through suppliers, school systems, retail and commercial outlets, employs millions of Americans. In a time of recession when already a million people have lost their jobs this year, it would be insane not ensure the industry's current and long term survival.

Reason #1: Live Action Puppies

Recently, one of the most cynical people I know admitted to being excited about the results of the election; he was "glad we didn't get the old man."  This person is no bleeding heart, more of a gun-toting entreprenuer.  Anyway, even he was affected.  Let's hope Obama fulfill all that promise.

P.S.  More evidence the optimism is real:  "The term "Obama Baby" has joined the English language amid speculation that Tuesday's crowds of emotionally charged voters probably went home and just cold got it on.  The Urban Dictionary Web site now offers the definition:  '1. Obama Baby: A child conceived after [ Barack] Obama was proclaimed President by way of celebratory sex.'"

Call and/or write your representatives to tell them to say NO to their proposed $700 billion handout to Wall Street. In this blogger's opinion, there is a better, more progressive way found here: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/01/barr_testimony.html.  The outline of their Saving America's Family Equity plan is a good way to help homeowners, mortgage holders AND shareholders in a fair, equitable way and also aides in restoring dignity to our financial markets. We can not have a bailout without accountability and giving carte blanche to Secretary Paulson will be just that.

A new reason occurred to me today to vote for Obama in the wake of the intensely complicated news coming from Wall Street.  The financial problems facing this country are way over my head; they require someone with an ability to grasp new concepts and the energy to tackle difficult challenges.  For that sole reason, I think Obama is the man for the job.

I hate to recount the last 8 years ad nauseum, but I'm honestly sick of being underwhelmed when the President speaks.  I'm ready for someone brilliant, confident, and impressive to lead this country and lead the charge in making it better.  I used to be impressed by John McCain's integrity.  While he may still be the principled man of years ago, he's an old man now.  This country needs a president who knows how to use email if we're going to update a cumbersome bureaucracy make government leaner and more efficient.

I strongly disagree with Andrew Sullivan's assessment of The Obama Family's Access Hollywood interview.  Obama got a lot of flack elsewhere from it, but what is the problem, exactly, with giving the American people a little taste of the Obama family? I had barely seen his kids before and thought it was a refreshing look at the non-politician side of the family.

Should Obama become president, these kids will be living in the White House. Insulating them from the public is going to be tough enough. Fame can be a toxin, but mostly only in families which are ill-prepared to raise children in that environment. After observing those kids, I can't see how anyone could doubt the parenting prowess of the Obama family.

Former Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro resigned from Hillary Clinton's campaign Wednesday, one day after making a racially insensitive comment about Barack Obama.  In truly moronic form, the first female ever to appear on a Presidential ticket (with Walter Mondale in 1984) said of Obama, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” 

She then went on to say that it was not a statement of racism, but a statement of fact.  Really?  That is a fact?  Let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say about that:

Wow.  I mean, this guy is worse than Kerry!

By the way, this election season, I'm starting movement to remove "flip-flop" from the American political discourse. The term makes no sense in relation to a politician's positions because either the pol flips or flops the positions, not both. 360 degrees gets you back to where you started. These are flip-flops, a perfectly good means of transportation, and using them for another purpose only sullies their name. Really, who doesn't love "thong sandals?"

So I'm calling for everyone to start using U-Turn instead. It has actual political roots that date back more than 4 years and the British use it and we all know everything the British do is cool.

McCain is also in my opinion a "bargain," but we'll get to that once the general election starts heating up.

Let's assume the race is down to the two major candidates on either side:  McCain and Romney; Clinton and Obama.  On balance, I'm still convinced that this election is the Democrats' to lose, given the national distaste for the conduct of a Republican administration over the past 8 years, and the war fatigue.  The war fatigue is ironic, though, because at the same time, I also think people want a strong, internationally engaged leader.  We're fed up with our over-exposure abroad, yet we're not quite ready for a completely domestic policy-focused president.

I haven't been inspired enough by any candidate to openly support one yet.  I'm an unregistered independent in New York, so I can't vote in the primary.  I've tried to remain open to this amazingly diverse field, but I still have some unmoved tendencies that have been hard to explain.  The most surprising to me, is that I just don't get Obama.

I hero worship, I constantly ask why we don't have inspirational figures like those of the 1960s, I complain about institutionalized politics and pragmatic moderates, and I used to think Al Gore was too conservative.  All these traits would suggest I might jump on board with Obama and charge full steam ahead.  But, I just don't buy it.

After 8 years of Bush, I want to make sure that the next president is, most importantly, not a Republican.  But also, the next president has to be able to accomplish as much policy change in federal government as possible in their short time in office.  For many reasons, I'm convinced that person, for better or worse, is not Obama.  It's Hillary.

I don't like her personally.  She fails to inspire me in any substantial way.  She is very much politics as usual.  But she is powerful.  She is composed, firm, motivated, dedicated, and she has powerful friends.  And her husband is Bill Fucking Clinton.

I know some people are uncomfortable with Bill being around.  I know many people are disgusted with the aggressive, maybe even dirty tactics the Clintons have used during the campaign.  But for me, I love it.  It doesn't bother me at all.  In fact, I find a strange comfort in their ability to win...at all costs.  It makes me comfortable to think that they won't put up with any shit from the eventual Republican candidate.  I gives me solace to think they will tell Putin to sit the fuck down.  That they, and their friends, are some of the smartest, most competitive, and most connected people in the world—kick ass.  The last time Democrats whined about dirty tricks, the Republicans still ended up in office.  Complaining doesn't win elections, winning does.

This time around, I actually don't want the grand inspirational figure as my president.  I want a tough, seasoned executive to get things done.  To know how federal government works and change what happened over the past 8 years.  To appoint judges, change administrative rules, dispatch diplomats, and bring intelligent people back into public service.  That's what I'm looking for.

Moving on to general election matchups.  Aside from the general vulnerabilities that Obama has (age & inexperience) which make him seem like the weaker candidate on the Dem side, I think the Clinton-McCain matchup poses a serious vulnerability for the Dems.  I think there's a certain breed of voter who is particularly motivated to vote McCain when the other choice is Hillary.  Sort of unaffiliated independents who respect McCain for his personality and his integrity and find neither in Hillary.  Romney is the Dems dream candidate.  He is such a phony, any independent who makes up their mind on common sense and personality will run screaming from that mannequin.  He sucks.  I won't even talk about him anymore.

Anyway, for a lot of reasons, I could be one of those people who are attracted to McCain over Hillary.  I have immense admiration for his life of public service, for his campaign finance reform fight, and for his integrity.  I think many of the traits I claim Hillary will bring to office, McCain could as well.  But one nagging thought stops me from making that choice at this point.  McCain will not bring with him to office one of the most important of those traits, and that is who he brings with him into government.

When Dubya came into office, he won the prize of appointing some 3,000 political operatives into the federal bureaucracy.  If a Democrat wins the presidency, he or she will have the privilege of accepting the resignation of each of those people and bringing his or her own people into government.  Judges, bureaucrats, diplomats, staffers, and the rest.  John McCain will fire some of Bush's employees, but not all.   And when he goes to fill the jobs of those that do leave, he will have to go to the well.  And that well is not stock full of fire-breathing Vietnam War vets who know right from wrong and up from down.  The well is stock full of more Republican operatives and conservative ideologues.  That's who John McCain will bring with him to Washington.

So, although it makes me a little uncomfortable to admit it.  For now, Hillary's my girl.

Hey! I finally get to exercise my civic duty and let my voice be heard, kinda sorta.

I'm currently pulling for O'Mania right now as I'm a bit tired of the old guard. But frankly, I'm bit worried if he loses. If Obama is not nominated, we risk a fractured coalition, with all these "new" new Democrats being so turned off we could not just squander the moment, but hurt Democratic chances for years to come.

It is exciting that Obama is generating not just lots of interest, but a certain type of interest; an uplifting message that appeals to many Americans. But will these Americans leave aside their differences and their torn hearts if the old guard pulls off yet another win? In my opinion, that remains to be seen.

This is the first year in awhile that one of us hasn't actually bothered to blog the President's SOTU. For my part, I just didn't care to watch it, but I hear it was real inspiring stuff.

But it was his last, finally. Visit here(http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/01/his-last-fuckin.html) to read a post by Sir Charles from Cogitamus, a good blog that has started to really blossom over the past 6 months. Good stuff!