The special runoff election for Louisiana's 2nd District is this Saturday, Dec. 6.

Malik Rahim is running for Congress  on the Green platform against incumbent William Jefferson, he of "money on ice" fame from a Congressional office refrigerator bulging with Ben Franklins.

But, this post is about change, not the same old, same old.

Per Rahim's campaign bio:

Malik Rahim is the founder of Common Ground Collective Under Malik's leadership, the Common Ground Collective opened the first free health clinic in the city of New Orleans, helped reopen schools, gutted over 3,000 homes that needed repair in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, and provided direct services to nearly 200,000 returning residents.

You can learn more about Rahim here and contribute to his campaign here.

This is a chance to help elect a truly independent voice to Congress.

He can still use your money (he's already gotten some of mine) or other help, such as doing GOTV calls.

First, the fact that Moody's, Fitch's etc get paid for proffering their ratings advice is nothing new.

I blogged about that and its incestuous results four months ago. Amongst my links was Mish at Global Economics, who noted this:

Moody's: "Moody's has no obligation to perform, and does not perform, due diligence."

S&P: "Any user of the information contained herein should not rely on any credit rating or other opinion contained herein in making any investment decision."

As for Warren Buffet? A quiet or dirty little secret that the "Oracle of Omaha" doesn't tout, but the man who called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction" owns 20 percent of Moody's. It's contained within a CondeNast Portfolio story noting how CDOs being "shorted" by more savvy investors were then having their "shorts" leveraged to create ... new CDOs.

Given that the power for this leverage ultimately traces back to the blank check of Moody's, along with Fitch's and S&P, it's no wonder the "Oracle" has remained silent.

So much for him having been touted as a source of financial advice to Obama.

Malik Rahim is running for Congress in Louisiana's Second District against incumbent William Jefferson, the latest in a long line of indicted or convicted Louisiana political shady characters. You can learn more about Rahim here and contribute to his campaign here.

Wtih real change unlikely to come from either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, this is a chance to get an independent, third-party voice in Congress!

Malik Rahim is running for Congress in Louisiana's Second District against incumbent William Jefferson, the latest in a long line of indicted or convicted Louisiana political shady characters. You can learn more about Rahim here and contribute to his campaign here.

Wtih real change unlikely to come from either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, this is a chance to get an independent, third-party voice in Congress!

First, I have to disagree with Robert Borosage. Policies don't evolve, Darwin-style. They are set and developed by people.

Next, to the primary matter at hand.

What else can you say about Obama's economic policy team, other than we don't officially have seven "dwarves"?

You can already look at possible dwarfishness level of at least some of the seven.

Of course, I'm far from alone on lamenting Obama's lack of progressive appointments.

And rather than just criticize, along with other critics, I can say I have had somebody better in mind than Larry Summers.

Joe Stiglitz has already, before today, come to mind.

But, Stiglitz has loudly lamented the shortfalls of neoliberalism the last few years. The fact that he apparently wasn't even on Obama's short list indicates just where Obama's thinking is, IMO.

As for Treasury AND other top financial positions, I can say (beyond thinking Stiglitz would have been very good) he should not have appointed any Goldman Sachs alum, given their track record. Beyond that, as I also wrote in a column at my newspaper company, I suggested an academic not connected closely to Wall Street. Without me naming names, there's plenty out there that would fit the bill.

Oh, and for good measure, take note that Warren Buffett is not as innocent of involvement in the subprime bubble as he has claimed.

The California Supreme Court is being asked to throw out Prop. 8 as having exceeded state constitutional bounds for the degree of its reach. Stay tuned, this thing could play out for months if not years; a possible scenario, and story link, is on my personal blog.

Today's Bloomberg story about the possibility of Clinton retread Larry Summers returning to the Treasury was nothing new to me.

At my blog, I have already covered the Summers possibility, along with Hagel at Defense and Kerry at State, more than two weeks ago, as well as the possibility of retaining Paulson more than a month ago. Geithner and others, including Gene Sperling, were already getting mentions weeks ago; another related post is here.

So, it's Clinton 2.0, it looks like, at least in fiscal and monetary policy.

Nothing new, unless the "change" meme remains, for many, a blank slate on which to project beliefs that Obama will actually be more liberal than he is. Remember, this is the same Obama who, already in 2000, called for a united Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel, and that was just at the political pander level of running for a House seat.

Per exit polls, it looks like at least some African-American ticket splitters are part of the cause. And, despite Obama cutting a no on 8 spot, his presence in Yes on 8 ads certainly is a case of petard hoisting, political-style.

Of course, IMO, Gavin Newsom was no help with his "in your face" style.  And the Mormons outspent even (orthodox) Christians in opposition.

Unless late votes in LA make a major swing, this is over. Details and analysis here.

Update, 4:30 a.m. Central time: LA voters have closed the gap somewhat, but most  the county is reported while, besides the OC, the rest of the yes-leaning Southland still has precincts outstanding. Updated details on my blog.

This all said, I doubt the election can be called before 6 a.m. my time, if then.

Eric Kleefeld, with tongue in cheek, suggests the "Stevens effect" to describe Alaskan elections, since it appears we can retire the Bradley effect.

More seriously, given that Prop. 8 was down 17 points in polls early in the campaign, I wonder if we shouldn't talk about an equivalent to the Bradley effect on this issue.

If Elizabeth Dole's North Carolina Democratic Senate challenger can sue Dole for defamation over a TV ad linking Hagan to an atheist, then surely I can sue Hagan for defaming atheism with her lawsuit against Dole.

Per ABC, the ad talks about Hagan's Sept. 15 appearance at a Boston fundraiser hosted by Woody Kaplan, on the advisory board of the Godless Americans Political Action Committee. At the end of the ad, Hagan's photo is front and center, but the audio is of a female voice saying, "There is no God." The effect is to make it seem like it is Hagan's voice when, in fact, it belongs to Ellen Johnson, the executive director of the Godless Americans PAC.

Beyond that, ABC's blog claiming the ad is "deceptive" with the voiceover may be phrasing things too strongly. It uses a static photo of Hagan, not a video clip, so you can tell she's not mouthing the words. Anybody who believes that the voice actually is Hagan's when it accompanies a still photo is a box of rocks too dumb to deserve the right to vote anyway.

That said, Hagan's filing just starts the process of a suit, which she has 20 days to initiate. In other words, this is political posturing over atheism. Feigned outrage even more hypocritical than real outrage.

It's batshit people like this who should know better that is the reason people say they'd be more likely to vote for a gay, even, than an atheist for president.

Many Democrats, in talking about the various ethical challenges of the McCain-Palin campaign, like to use the line, "If Obama did this, what would the media say?"

Well, I'm going to turn that on its head.

If Dole ran a similar ad about Hagan associating with gays, what would the media say?

And, if Hagan filed a lawsuit over such an ad, what would the media say about that?

BOTH candidates get a C. Why?

 

In a nutshell, I think Ayers was the one issue where McCain could both throw red meat to the base AND appeal to independents. Not the Ayers of the past, but the Ayers of today.

 

A laundry list of all the Annenberg Challenge grants the Woods Foundation approved would probably have turned up something that many centrists might have wondered about. It might just have been the names of a few educational programs, nothing more. Or, there might have been something more.

Obama? Especially having the second closing, he had a chance to make the sale -- really make it. And he didn't While he wasn't Mike Dukakis, he was at best up to Gore 2000 or Kerry 2004 passion/rhetoric level and far short of Bill Clinton. The kitchen sink will come back out from the McCain campaign, and Obama could have done more to widen the gap.

This is the same John McCain who "suspended" his campaign two weeks ago. This is the same John McCain who said Ayers was "off limits to him" (but apparently not his staff) earlier this week.

So, let's be a bit more cautious and skeptical. Per Obama's subtle calling out of McCain on alleged cowardice earlier this week, let's wait, say, until next Wednesday and the final presidential debate.

Beyond that, even if McCain is reining in himself, does this apply to himself only? Or is he reining in his campaign staff?

Is he reining in Palin?

CAN HE rein in Palin?

I give Biden a solid B, versus a C-minus/D-plus to Palin; details at my blog with liveblogging summary. The "soccer mom/Jane Six-Pack" wore on me. Frankly, I think she's a brunette Gennifer Flowers with tattooed lip liner. Besides his "no maverick" riposte, smartly held in holster until the end, he had a better presence. I don't think his sigh at the one-hour mark will get held against him.

That said, per the title, he did tell one whopper, and that was on gay rights.

Joe, it's simply not true. If you (and Obama) oppose gay marriage, that's discrimination. Period.

And, then, the secondary lie? Sorry, but marriage is a civil and not a church institution.

There's all sorts of legal discrimination behind that, Joe, despite your sweet talk about hospital visits and such.

Maybe a minority president will change his tune (especially if California gay marriage rights survive the state constitutional amendment challenge Nov. 4), but I'm not too sanguine, to be honest. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Obama does anything to change don't ask, don't tell.

But, as an independent liberal to left-liberal, that, and the fact that they're not that much better than McCain-Palin on alt fuels with slightly less dirty coal and ethanol, is another reason I'm voting Green.

And, that's Green. Cynthia McKinney. NOT Ralph Nader.

First, with the tax breaks, per Schmuck Talk Express™, it’s festooned with various crapola that could piss off:
• The House GOP
• Blue Dog Dems
• Progressive Caucus-type Dems
• All of the above.

Plus, the FDIC deal is only temporary, and I’ve not heard how — if at all — that will be paid for. Here’s more of my take on it.

Second, some House Dems have been crafting something else.

The DeFazio plan is better, indeed, than the Paulson plan, but on things like the FDIC backstopping, it’s not that much better.

For people both inside and outside the Street, puhleeze. If you're over 35 you should, and over 40, you definitely should, remember — Black Monday from 1987. Sure, today had the biggest point drop in history, but in terms of percentage? Not even close. Today's drop was, in percentage terms less than 30 percent that of the historic 1987 crumbling. Get some more background on needed perspective at my blog, with this post: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/09/some-wall-street-bailout-perspective.html But, the Street was actually prepared for that, unlike today, when we haven't even heard a peep from NYSE CEO Duncan Niederauer. (Oh, and in terms of percentage points, besides Black Monday of 1987, we've had at least one other 20-percent drop. Also get more perspective on how this SHOULD play out legislatively, if more liberal Dems can "flip" the leadership... who should be asking questions, too... like about possible Paulson conflicts of interest. It's all here: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/09/some-wall-street-bailout-perspective.html And at other posts, about Paulson's possible conflict of interest in the AIG bailout and other things.

First, Boehner was looking for a reason to CYA. And he found it -- blame Pelosi's speech. That said, especially OPENING her speech that way, was Pelosi being political? Hell, yes. Where has THAT Pelosi been on impeachment, torture, Iraq, etc.? You know the answer -- AWOL. For more along these lines, visit this blog post: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-fallout-boehner-titty-baby.html