Blog Archives

What the Iowa Caucus Looks Like…

Well, it’s tomorrow… the Iowa Caucus will take place and, finally, come to a close, leaving us with what? The up and down polls have have moved one candidate after another into the lead until no matter who wins it will probably not be by much.

Ezra Klein in the Washington Post showed the condition of the Iowa polls in the last few months here:

… almost uninterpretable!

I guess I’ll put my money on… gee, I don’t know. Iowa has a record for not coming up with the final nominee (folks like Pat Robertson come to mind) and the rise in the last couple of days of Rick Santorum makes me think some of our best comedy writers are behind the whole thing.


If Gingrich wins, Obama will be thrilled.

Quote of the Day

… from Ezra Klein in the Washington Post, regarding the budget deal Obama made with Boehner on Friday night:

Right now, the economy is weak. Giving into austerity will weaken it further, or at least delay recovery for longer. And if Obama does not get a recovery, then he will not be a successful president, no matter how hard he works to claim Boehner’s successes as his own.

It’s worth your time to read the whole column HERE.

Here’s a great long post by Doctor Cleveland:

Here’s the first couple of paragraphs:

History Never Repeats Itself

by Doctor Cleveland

Election day is next Tuesday. Papers like the New York Times and Washington Post began publishing their post-mortem analyses of the election results last week. What should Obama do now that next Tuesday’s results are in? Highly paid opinion writers have opinions.

The current conventional wisdom has two basic pillars:

1) It is currently 1994.

2) Since it’s 1994, Bill Clinton should be President.

I’m going to leave the actual electoral predictions to my colleague Articleman and to folks like Nate Silver. But even if Tuesday night were to turn into an exact replay of 1994, district by district, the political situation on Wednesday morning would still be something completely new. History echoes itself, but it never repeats exactly. If this really were 1994, of course, being more like Bill Clinton would be a stupid idea, like telling someone fighting Muhammad Ali to be more like Sonny Liston. As Ezra Klein and Josh Marshall both remind us, the Big Dog was soundly beaten in 1994. And his post-1994 playbook, no matter how successful it was fifteen years ago, is just not going to work in 2011. Things have changed.

Now go to DAGBLOG to read the rest.

Reading a WaPo article by Ezra Klein on who we can blame for job losses…

Republicans are blaming Obama for Job Losses, but Klein takes a look at who we really have to blame for them. Like these statistics that Economist Rob Shapiro got out of the Bureau of Labor Statisttics:

From December 2007 to July 2009 – the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency, before his policies could affect the economy – private sector employment crashed from 115,574,000 jobs to 107,778,000 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,000 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republicans’ watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administration kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountable for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 – 630,000), while the Republicans should be held responsible for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs.

Now I realize that Obama is responsible at this point for what happens with the Recovery.

It won’t be Ben Quayle who does it:

Now wasn’t his father the Worst Vice President we ever had?