×
- Anyone looking for the meaning behind yesterday's elections should consult this chart from Joshua Tucker, which tells you all you need to know about the new balance of power in Washington and at the state level. And of course, if yesterday was a referendum on Obama's policies, especially health care, then "the people," as it were, voted to give Nancy Pelosi two more votes in the House.
- Chris Matthews is correct that some liberal activists had too high expectations for the first year of the Obama administration's ability to "change the Congress," but his insistence that the "netroots" are "wrong and misinformed" is confusing. During last year's campaign, the Obama team quite deliberately shut out the liberal blogosphere and constructed instead a parallel "netroots" that was composed of, unsurprisingly, those most enthusiastic about Barack Obama. Separating these different netroots, to say nothing of the less activist, more policy-oriented blogger, is something self-important media figures like Matthews have never been able to do.
- As Daniel Larison observes, it's impossible to take anything conservative hawks say on foreign policy seriously because so much of what passes for "analysis" on the right is designed to assess the president's actions and intent in the worst possible light. The same applies, of course, to domestic policy, and the result is that the bulk of what passes for conservative thought is so intellectually dishonest and motivated by pure partisan gamemanship that legitimate conservative criticism is lost in the noise.
- Remainders: Obama nominates two more America-hating judges to destroy the Constitution; Blue Dog Democrats are under the impression that they were elected to Congress to get nothing done; the coming turf war between Defense and State boils down to money; Hendrik Hertzberg plausibly predicts the next four years; Carly Fiorina announces gubernatorial run, is immediately labeled a RINO; and Chuck Colson is here to lecture you on religious foundations of morality.
--Mori Dinauer
