Gov. Jan Brewer (R) AZ Totally Looks Like Petunia from Futurama

You heard it hear first: Gov. Jan Brewer (R) AZ Totally Looks Like Petunia from Futurama.






[Thanks to The Infosphere for Petunia image.]

Obama Can Relax Some Time in 2016

So a few days ago I was still thinking how I hope Obama can finally get health care passed so he can move on to other stuff, because there's a lot of it: energy, the environment, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the 2012 election, the 2010 election, education, South America, financial regulations, the economy, jobs, Guantanemo, Mars, senior positions, Africa, federal court appointments, corporate compensation, reengagement abroad, race, the U.S. intelligence apparatus, Asia, drug policy, immigration, gays in the military, Europe and Antarctica (Australia can suck it.)

Please do not email me to tell me what I have left off this list.

J/k no one every reads this shit.

Then yesterday happened. My first thought was about my opinion of the whole plan which is not terribly interesting and no one cares about. My second thought was about how the Senate would react (in case you missed it) and about what in general the consensus or narrative on this thing was going to be (which I think is still emerging but may be "Repubs. favor, Dems. oppose.") My third thought was "okay, obviously this is all anyone on any news channel will be talking about for a while. What's happening with health care?" (answer: amendments, etc.)

But just now I had my FOURTH thought, which was "Obama is never, ever going to take care of everything on that list."

When I saw Obama in the last week or so of the election, I thought "laugh it up, Fuzzball." He looked soooo confident and soooo relaxed. It was sort of inspiring. Obama had seen all the numbers I was watching obsessively and decided that he was going to win.

Thing is, I knew that the minute a president takes office is the minute he loses control of his agenda. I could literally count the days until Obama was no longer master of his own destiny. It wasn't his fault - there's just too much that a president has to contend with for him to focus on his ideal priorities whenever he wants. I mean, people actively trying to foil you at every turn is just ONE of your problems. Imagine if you had to deal with that in YOUR job.

This is why I was pulling for Obama to front-load - stuff is always going to happen that throws the president off, but early on is when he has the most momentum, political capital, control of his agenda and ability to govern.

All of which was going fine until health care. There's no shame in it. Health care has been foiling politicians in this country since at least 1906 (fun fact: the first time, it was shot down as "Prussianization.")

So I have been waiting health care out. It was touch and go for a bit (4:38), but I was confident health care would pass eventually and if maybe we lost the public option, whatever (Act Three or point two of a National Review summary here.)

I had hoped that once we had taken care of health care, Obama could maybe take on some easy stuff, some one-acts. Fixing gays in the military is just a matter of signing an executive order, calling everyone who doesn't like it unpatriotic, starting a more interesting news cycle and then six months later letting everyone know how many lives our new Arabic translators have saved, thanks to you. It's like a political appetizer.

But here was Obama piling one major and controversial life-or-death political issue on top of another major and controversial life-or-death political issue. It's not that he wants to - it's just that he doesn't have a choice. Afghanistan needed announcing and health care is coming along but it just wasn't done yet. What are you going to do?

And so I must now kiss goodbye to my imaginary hypothetical breather for Obama. This is simply the highest level of difficulty for a presidency since FDR. I mean, Obama was getting grey hairs back in March (they come and go.) Pass or fail - and this plan is going to be make or break for his legacy - Obama still has his work cut out for him. This guy is not going to get to rest until he's done with the whole damn game and napping on the porch of his coming-soon political library in Honolulu, I am guessing somewhere by the beach.

Until then, good luck to him and all of us.

ribbles on Taliban on Nobel Committee on Obama

The Taliban is apparently immune to both aerial bombardment and irony:

"The Nobel prize for peace? Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told Reuters by telephone from an undisclosed location.

(via Reuters)

Outbreak Theory

Just finished reading a very comprehensive New Yorker article [log-in required] on the events leading up to the collapse of Lehman and, by extension, the world economic crisis. 

The article's conclusion is that despite the extensive (and arguably justified) critism of the bailout, the feeling that at least some comprehensive plan was in place prevented the worldwide financial panic we feared in the nervous months after Lehman. 

This reminded me of two things. First, an article in Wired about virus theory wherein researchers ran thousands of computer simulations to predict the spread of world-threatening viruses if they found their way in to the population. The other, a practical guide to removing stains. 

In both cases, the conclusions were the same.  I doesn't so much matter what you do as long as you DO SOMETHING. Close the schools, quarantine, stop interstate travel, rub with soap and warm water - any preventative measure is better than nothing and, generally speaking, enough to stop a crisis.

ribble's Brief Foray in to the News Cycle

Everyone's accusing the Obama administration of being distracted (or trying to distract us) - by AIG bonuses (iTunes link), by Rush Limbaugh.

Can an entire administration BE distracted? I know those guys are short handed, but I'd like to think that there's one part of the administration that's working on AIG's $165M in bonuses and some different guys working on the $170,000M bailout.

Or, to address the other issue I mentioned, take a look at the transcript of Gibbs's March 2 White House Press Briefing. Gibbs answers maybe five questions on Limbaugh, but it's one of many issues that he addresses, most having to do with the economy.

Now, Gibbs has seen Frost/Nixon same as the rest of us. He understands that of the things he says in a daily briefing, maybe 20 seconds will get endless play on cable news.

But does that mean Gibbs is distracted? Or that he's distracting us? Or should we blame the media?

Is it that this is the most interesting thing that Gibbs said that day? Or is it simply what got the most attention - maybe some sort of media path dependence at work.

Obama / Leno

Stayed up late to watch Obama on Leno.

After watching hours of Sunday talk shows and like every episode of Planet Money, I kind of get the feeling that Leno's reaaally dumbing it down for me.

I mean, Obama's dumbing it down, too, but he's just doing it for Leno's audience.

Basically I am saying Jay Leno is dumb.

MSNBC report here.

Bush's Cheney Impression

Watching Cheney on "State of the Union," thinking about this quote from David Brooks on NewsHour:

"And then the final thing I would say is, I think, in the last couple years, Bush understood the weaknesses of that and I think distanced himself from Cheney. You know, Bush does an impersonation of Cheney. And that began to surface a little more in the last couple years."

I would love (LOVE) to see Bush's Cheney impression. I'm running in to too much Google flack to do a proper search. Anyone who can help my search?

Republican Self-Destruction Watch

(Alternate title: GOP 2012 Where Are They Now?)

It is very easy for a president to be re-elected. His main advantage, as Bill Clinton famously put it (in a different context) before he handily defeated well-meaning erectile dysfunction sufferer Bob Dole: "The President is relevant." The President can command the global stage simply by opening his mouth. Tough to compete with that.

Like watching the Spurs win an easy game, there's a certain satisfaction to watching this play out. Specifically, there's something very enjoyable about watching the other team's potential candidates self-destruct.

The most satisfying Republican presidential candidate self-destructions so far:

Bobby Jindal
Rudy Giuliani (pull quote: "The more that Republican voters saw of him, the less they wanted to vote for him.")
George Allen

(I am sure I'll be updating this list.)

[June Update: Ensign
Sanford]
[July Update: Palin
Keep it coming, guys! Best party ever!]

The hardest self-destruction to watch is always the guy who wins the nomination. With the arguable exception of Gore, every general election loser hasn't been so much outmaneuvered as outmatched.

Sorry, other guy.

Inside Baseball Infighting

Listening to a NewsHour report on Obama's anti-earmark policies and thinking about Clinton's first two years in office. Then, having a president and a congress from the same party did not lend itself to the sorts of legislative striving you may expect.

I think it fundamentally comes down to the fact that the President will always be in a fight with whomever is in charge of congress - it is in the nature of our lovely power-seperated multi-branch governmental system.

BAM DELIVERS

I'm thinking about how Obama's first few months in office will compare to Bush's.

I remember before September of 2001 when it started to become clear that George Bush was going to govern like a very typical conservative despite the "compassionate conservative" rhetoric of his campaign. I'm talking about stuff like missile defense, "un-signing" treaties, ignoring the conflict in Israel like any true isolationist, social conservative stuff like gay marriage legislation - you know, the usual.

I'm not sure if anyone was surprised when this started, but I wasn't. If it weren't for 9/11, we would have seen plenty more of it.

Now, it's hard to hear the Midwest from Brooklyn over all the cheering, but I'm wondering if conservative are looking at the stuff Obama is doing and saying the same things I was saying when Bush started. Fact is, Obama is doing some of the things any liberal president would do - expanding climate control legislation, for example.

But if you missed the one news cycle when, say, Obama repealed the ban of federal funding for family planning organizations abroad, you can forgive yourself. Because most of the typical liberal stuff is being overshadowed by the huge, world-shifting stuff that Obama is also doing.

I would like to suggest a New York Post headline: BAM DELIVERS. Succeed or fail (and I'm sure we'll get some of each), Obama is making the big changes he promised. I think it's good news that he'll be judged on that, and not on the small stuff that this crisis has forced to the wayside.

Two Quick Notes on the Presidency

Obama also made a sort of off hand remark with Lehrer: that this was a time of great peril and great possibility, and naturally that's when you want to be president, but it would be nice if it weren't that every crisis was coming at him at once.

As I mentioned before, a president is really most effective in his first few years in office. Right now, big crises are letting Obama focus his agenda on the things that really matter, and the fact that they are all happening at once lets him move forward aggressively with a complete agenda.

I just want everyone to be prepared for Obama's second term when it seems like his main job is protecting his legacy from congressional meddling.

This is normal.

Note #2: I saw ribble's all-time favorite band They Might Be Giants live tonight. It reminded me of reading about Pres. Clinton's 50th, when Hillary got Bill's favorite band to do a concert for him at the White House.

Ever since I read that, I've wanted to be president just so I could get They Might Be Giants to do a private concert for me at the White House. This would have the advantage of my being the first person in like 30 years to request a song successfully during a TMBG set (they use a set list) and, second, my really freaking out the people who elected me with some new and surprising depths to my own dorkiness.

A Small and Obscure Point About Something No One is Talking or Thinking About Any More

Is it possible the Joe the Plumber thing, and specifically the video of Joe speaking with then Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, actually helped Obama to win the presidency?

I was thinking about this while watching David Brooks on last night's NewsHour. Brooks was talking about Obama's interview with Lehrer following Obama's S. Carolina announcement of a new troop drawdown in Iraq.

Brooks was talking about how Obama comes off, "as usual," as someone who takes his responsibilities seriously, someone you can have confidence in. It reminded me of how, at its heart, the full YouTube video of the Joe the Plumber encounter is an eloquent defense of Obama's tax plan made by Obama itself.

McCain was basically directing both voters who favored him and those who favored Obama towards a 6-minute video of Obama standing off stage and talking patiently, eloquently and frankly with a voter who obviously disagreed with him.

Lesson (for politicians): always be prepared to behave as if you are on camera in front of the entire nation because these days, you always are.

Lesson (for opposing politicians): if you're going to try to call your opponent out on something he said, try to make it a moment when he doesn't look so goddamn presidential.

Lesson (for the media): now you've got a new angle for the next time Joe Wurzelbacher makes the news.

State of the Union-ish

Know how they say in Summer camp the days are long but the weeks are short? Well, like a pre-teen with an accelerated activity schedule, Obama has chosen to live life faster than the rest of us.

Case in point: Obama decided to move what looked a whole lot like his first state of the union address to tonight.

It's kinda a genius move. A president is always most effective in his first year in office (first two years if you're lucky). Besides, he's got friendly majorities in the House and Senate now; who knows how it will look in two years. He's already done in a month what most presidents would do in a year. Why not cram what should by all rights be four years of governing in to the next twelve months?

One thing he won't be doing is wasting time. Obama is helped here by so far having only problems that are so big and awful that they've been pounding us since before the end of the campaign. That means that a lot of the things he said tonight sounded like familiar promises from his campaign.

Unlike, say, the Clinton administration, which was very much a reactionary administration, and the Bush administration, which lead the federal government where it wanted to go despite what the actual problems were that the country needed to address, Obama here is both actively pushing forward on his agenda and addressing problems that the nation needs to deal with.

Someone on CNN is punditing now: "Look, if he's able to achieve even half of what he said, a lot of folks will pleased."

Yes, Obama is ambitious. Yes he's confident. We knew that when we hired him. So what we've got now is a smart, focused, ambitious guy who learns wicked fast and is pointing this country in exactly the direction it needs to go, just like he's always said he would.

It's perhaps a sign of how bad things have gotten, how challenging the obstacles that Obama will have to deal with, that my main thought is "let's wait and see how he'll do." We should be a lot more excited than this. But, for now, Obama is everything we could hope for.

How You Can Make $200 From the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Yesterday, President Obama signed in to law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the full text of which you can read here.

It is very long.

Now, I want my piece of the government's money same as anyone. However, I just bought some new novels, and my docket is a bit full at the moment. Plus, 900 page resolutions are just not suitable subway reading.

Here's what I propose: first person out there to read H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - the whole thing - and tell me how I, Richard, can make money off it: $200 dollar reward.

Bam! Two hundred smackers, in cash, right there in an envelope of your choice delivered to an address of your choosing. It's my little investment in our future.

Now, I am no stickler for protocol, but let me make clear on some ground rules. First, although you must read the whole bill, skimming is allowed. It's also ok if you've read H.R. 1 for some other enterprise (like you work in a senator's office) as long as it is the final version of the bill that you've read and not some previous incarnation.

However, for my $200 I am expecting some advice that is tailored to me. We'll talk it over as I verify that you've read the whole bill, but if you want a little guidance as you work your way through this thing, you should know these money making-relevant things about me:

First, I am not above starting my own business although I'm a bit lazy about running one. I would not be putting a world-changing amount of money in to this theoretical enterprise, but I do have what people refer to as "life savings."

Finally, I have only the mildest form of business training and only a few marketable skills (making movies, writing unreadably long essays about pop culture minutiae, etc.), none of which would qualify me to, say, build a new national power grid. However, you can assume that I am a clever and able-bodied American in the classic tradition.

Please leave your submissions in the comments section of this post. First to read the bill and sell me on how it can make me money is the winner!

Notice to the Daily Show Re: Michael Steele

Guys,

I have just finished watching newly elected RNC Chairman Michael Steele's first This Week interview, and I am ready to say that it is time to stop making fun of Michael Steele for being a black Republican and time to start making fun of him for some of the stupid shit he has said.

Steele spent several excruciating minutes explaining why creating "work" had nothing to do with creating "jobs." The distinction being that "work" created by the government only lasted until the end of a contract, whereas "jobs" created by small businesses, like the millions lost so far: "When they go - they've gone away before, and they come back."

If that makes sense to you, you are either thinking too hard or not hard enough.

Steele then went on to slam Pell grant allocations as having no effect on the job you lose today. When George Stephanopoulos asked him if he Steele would agree that a school construction component of the bill would create jobs, Steele said Sure, short term construction jobs, if that's all you're after.

If he's interested in creating a stronger economy in the long term, why not help train the American work force to create them? And if he's interested in short-term jobs, why not let small businesses have a few government contracts until banks start lending again?

It's funny that America's historically most racist major party elected a black man their chair [at 1:36] two weeks after the Obama took office, but, trust me - listen to this Steele guy. What he's saying is a lot funnier than the color of his skin.

Sincerely,
ribble's

Post-Anticipation Post-Bush

Just before the inauguration, everybody on every television news show was giving his analysis of the failings of the Bush administration. Everybody, even hard-core Republicans, was able to come up with something, but most people had a very long list. Of course, it would take a book-length treatise to detail all the failings of the Bush administration, and several have already been published.

Now we've got this new guy, and there's been a shift in tone. Where previous reports tried to list the failings of the Bush administration, the news since the inauguration has been much more effective by characterizing it. The results have been bone-chilling.

For the record, then, if you want to understand the true legacy of the Bush administration without wading through Fiasco and Scott McClellan, take a look at Clinton's liberation of our foreign policy apparatus (beginning at 2:41), this New York Times article about American science's Bush hangover, and This American Life's podcast entitled The Audacity of Government (it's from 2008, but you'll see what I mean.)

Shimon Peres on Gaza

I just started watching George Stephanopoulos interviewing Israeli President Simon Peres on This Week.

Usually I half-watch this show until the roundtable in a lazy Sunday sort of way, but Peres is an engaging interview, and by engaging, I mean bone-chilling.

The nice thing about American press interviews with foreign leaders versus, say, American press interviews with ranking Senate Republicans is that foreign leaders do not have the same level of constant, institutional preparation for the American media, and so are less likely to be rehearsed, carefully-crafted talking points aimed at an American constituency.

It's always a little jarring at first. You can see the same thing in Roger and Me, when Michael Moore is interviewing GM managers about plant closings. These guys talk about capitalism in some pretty stark terms - their message is basically "yeah, we're costing Michigan tens of thousands of jobs, it's in our own self-interest to do that and so you can't hold it against us."

This is back in 1989, before Moore was a genre, and, from a modern perspective, these stuffed shirts don't seem cruel so much as naive. I'm sure the people making the decision about American plant closings are thinking about them in pretty much the same way now as then - but they sure aren't talking about it like that.

By modern standards, Peres gives us a pretty sharp look in to his soul.

Peres's main point on This Week is "we're not going to stop shooting at them until they stop shooting at us," which may sound reasonable until you realize that if the other guys are thinking the same way, then, logically, the shooting will never stop.

But it's not so much what he says as how he says it. Know how I said Indians and Pakistanis were basically the same people and would probably get along if they just stopped with all the posturing and brinksmanship? Not so much with Israelis and Palestinians.

That's why you can see something in Peres that no media-savvy American leader would allow himself on T.V. (unless he thought he only needed to talk to his base) - you can see hate. And that's why there won't be peace in the Middle East in His lifetime.

Three Porn Movie Titles That Parody Popular Political Movements

Cum-Passionate Cunt-servatives

Third Way Three Ways

Morning in America's Vagina

If somebody out there wants to whip up some graphics for a DVD box cover, I think we could make a fortune.

Three Neglected Political Issues

India-Pakistan Peace
My odd and obscure high school in Wales was founded on the principal that if you brought future leaders of the world together in one place, they would meet people from other countries and later be much less likely to bomb those countries.

The most important thing I found out at school was that people from all over the world are pretty much the same. The people you went to high school with are the same as the people someone living on the other side of the world went to high school with.

One group of people at my school were "Subconties," i.e. of subcontinental Asia, i.e. Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshies.

For

those not attuned to foreign affairs, let me give you a quick version of 60-odd years of history: India and Pakistan fight a lot. They both claim ownership of Kashmir, both countries' politicians blame everything on the other country's politicians, blah blah blah, they fight.

Thing is, we are talking about two groups of people who are basically the same group of people. I would be talking to subconties hanging out together in the dorm, conversation would turn to the 60-odd years of fighting thing, and they would say "Yeah. We're the same." Once you take out the politicians on both sides saying "they started it and we'll make them pay," you get two peoples who really ought to be getting along.

Know what that is? An opportunity for peace. A GOOD opportunity for peace. I'd go so far as to say there's a better chance of India and Pakistan working out their differences than of Israel and Palestine working out their differences. Get some of those Israel / Palestine people in there, they'll have a Subconties' Cricket League organized within a year.

Tariffs on Imported Sugar
I think all my information here is based on a single article in The New Yorker, but here goes:

Ethanol is a fuel supplement not made from dinosaur bones. In the States, most ethanol is made from corn because Iowa, an important early voting state in Presidential elections, grows a lot of corn and has made ethanol a litmus test for presidential candidates.

Thing is, you could make ethanol a lot more efficiently by using sugar instead of corn. However, most sugar is grown outside the United Staes, and the small-big problem is that sugar from outside the country is heavily tariffed.

Get rid of the tariffs and you're one step closer to a green economy. Problem is it takes a lot of balls to stand up to a highly motivated lobby like the one aiming to keep sugar tariffs in place.

Amtrak
Amtrak is perpetually kept alive by federal subsidies, but, outside of D.C. to New York, it sucks. Why is there only one train a day to Vermont? Why does the train from New Mexico to L.A. have three hours of "padding" in the schedule between the penultimate and final stop? Why is Amtrak always slow, expensive and uncomfortable?

I can't quite decide if Amtrak sucks because it's grown lazy due to federal subsidies and a lack of competition, or if it just doesn't have the resources to do better, but I am HEAVILY leaning towards "lazy."

What, is America the only country IN THE WORLD that can't figure out how to have proper passenger rail system? Europe does it. India does it. Japan does it. Shit, they've got trains in SIBERIA. We can't do better than Siberia?!

I see functioning train systems running out of New York - Metro-North, Acela (the functioning part of Amtrak), etc. Why can't the national Amtrak system get its act together and become a serious alternative transport for traveling the country?

I know Biden is a big Acela guy, but I'm hoping it'll be a Nixon in China thing - no one could accuse Dick of being a commie, so he had the leeway to open up relations with the mainland. Biden is an Acela guy - he'd be in a perfect position to get Amtrak to stop sucking on threat of an end of subsidies.

ribble's Brief Foray in to 2012

I starting writing this post in mid-October, when I was checking Electoral-Vote.com three times a day. Even then, for those of us closely following prediction sites, it was looking like a landslide - (this Politico article [link via E-V] presents some of the many theories on why the press didn't see it that way, but it's all sour grapes now I suppose.)

So I'm thinking: what can I, an intelligent but unexceptional political observer, predict about the future (say, 2012) without doing any research? Could I, for example, predict who will be THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?!?!?!*

No.

But here are some guesses about who the Republicans could put up to run against Obama, a little bit of no-research handicapping, and then a sort of general statement that dismisses the whole exercise as pointless.


* I am writing a lot of things IN CAPS because I am reading the new JOHN HODGMAN and he does that a lot.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Cal.)
Arnold has what David Bornstein might call a "small-big" problem - he would probably do pretty well if he ran for president, but it would be illegal.

Yes, you have to be born in the United States to run for president, and it would take nothing short of a constitutional amendment for him to be able to run. There is an "Amend For Arnold" movement out there which I refuse to google but I imagine has lost some momentum in the last three years or so.

So why mention him? Well, I like the idea of an amendment that allows someone born outside the U.S. to immigrate and run for President. Back when only white men could be President, maybe it didn't matter, but in this modern world, why not open things up to Americans with international backgrounds or funny accents?

It might be difficult to pull this off while my side is in control of things in D.C. just because the other guys already have their guy in mind, but I'll I'm saying is - Madeleine Albright 2016. Maybe at 79, she'd have to be at the bottom of the ticket, but come on. That would be awesome.

Leaving that aside - I almost feel like Schwarzenegger is too good a politician to take a show in 2012.

National name recognition, a carefully cultivated position as a moderate, awesome 1st lady, governor of some place (it doesn't super matter where you're governor of if you're running for president), and maybe even able to win California if he doesn't screw anything serious up in the next however long - this guy has too good a shot to try to run against a popular president with a high approval rating running for re-election. That's a sucker's bet. Look for a new Amend for Arnold movement around 2013 or 2014 anticipating a 2016 Arnold for President campaign.


Palin
Ugh. When CNN isn't talking about Obama's dog, they're talking about McCain's people calling Palin an idiot. And when they aren't talking about that, they're talking about Palin 2012.

It kind of makes sense to put these two ideas together if you assume running as a Republican in 2012 is a sucker's bet and Palin's some sort of sucker.

But I don't think Palin is the idiot we've been lead to believe. I certainly don't buy these anonymous campaign aids saying she didn't know Africa was a continent and couldn't name the countries in North America, and shame on Fox News, Jack Cafferty and whoever else for repeating it.

(Reminder to journalists: these McCain staffers were the same people making shit up about Obama.)

Sitting in her hotel lobby, Palin looked a lot smarter talking to the press than she ever did before. Now she has two years to get her act together on national and international issues instead of two months. She may surprise us.

Okay, that said, Palin represents a certain identity for the Republican party that I don't think is any longer tremendously effective or even very electable.

Maybe it's liberal wishful thinking, but I think if anyone's at the wheel for Republicans after they've had a chance to regroup, they'll start thinking of themselves as a pro-capitalist (as opposed to pro-business), more technocratic party that believes in climate change and puts results ahead of culture wars.

Absolutely none of that describes Palin.


Gov. Bobby Jindal (La.)

Young, fashionably non-white, willing to take charge of a place in trouble, from a state that had earned a reputation as nigh-ungovernable before he showed up, governor of anywhere and ready to make an argument on where the GOP should be going, Jindal is a serious guy with a serious shot at the nomination.


Gov. Jim Pawlenty (Minn.) or any of these other governors you hear about

Governors generally beat senators in presidential elections, but presidents tend to beat challengers. These guys are where the media is looking for the GOP's great white hope, if you'll excuse the term. Look for at least two governors to join the early hunt against Palin 2012.

REMINDER: I am not being more specific because I have not done ANY RESEARCH.


Alan Keyes (Illinois or wherever)

Alan Keyes is the perpetual African-American Republican candidate for president who no one takes seriously (or maybe this last time he ran as an independent or something? I am flying without a net here, people.) Last time Keyes was noticed by anybody: when he ran against Obama for Senate in Ill. after the original guy dropped out due to being corrupt or something.

Look for Keyes's name on your ballot on Nov. 6, 2012, and expect to be surprised to see it there because you have not really heard anything about him, and then to forget all about it by the time you leave your polling place.


Newt Gingrich

I am a diligent watcher of Stephanopoulos, where former house speaker and former kind of a jerk Newt Gingrich made occasional appearances on the round table.

From where I was sitting, Gingrich was coming across as a sort of lapsed elder statesman - he'd had his shot, been around, still knew the score for the most part, but could sort of do his thing as a commentator because no one really thought he'd be getting back in to politics (see Carter, Gore, Ayers, etc.)

So maybe a month ago, Gingrich was on and giving it pretty hard to the McCain people. Specifically, he was making a lot of anti-Obama arguments much more strongly and starkly than McCain had been doing it. Gingrich was sounding a lot less like a guy spending his retirement writing book reviews on the internet and a lot more like, well, like Rush Limbaugh.

At first, I just assumed that Newt had been politicized by the election just like everyone else. But when I was writing out my notes for this list, it occurred to me that maybe Gingrich was looking ahead, positioning himself for a run at 2012.

Gingrich is a return to the past, but he's still got a nationally recognized name, and there are those who think that what McCain did wrong was not being ENOUGH of a 1998-style Republican. Without doing any research, I'd take a chance and rank Gingrich among them.

I would not be surprised to hear about Gingrich taking a shot in 2012, but I'll be even less surprised when the media starts mentioning it a few years from now.


Why It Was Especially Dumb to Spend a Month Writing This

Here's a big secret that ought to be conventional wisdom: Obama is going to win reelection in 2012 no matter who runs against him. Here's why:

1) Incumbents tend to be re-elected.


2) The stronger challengers will wait for 2016.

Biden has said he won't run, meaning the Republicans will have a lot of the advantages in 2016 that Democrats had this year - basically, an open field against an incumbent party. Smart contenders will bide their time. The 2008 field will be taking their last shot before they're too old to compete.


3) Obama probably won't screw up in either his governing or in campaigning.

The most opinionated Republican commentators have adapted this very annoying "just you wait - you'll see we were right when Obama starts screwing up slash being a liberal terrorist" sort of attitude since the election. Fact is, Obama probably won't screw up.

The most persuasive evidence I see for this is how Obama ran his campaign. My mom was volunteering for the man in New Mexico. One week she came up to Brooklyn to visit, and there happened to be an article in the Times about an Obama campaign office in Pennsylvania or someplace. Mom said she recognized almost everything described in the office from her own Obama campaign office.

That sort of national consistency takes a master administrator. If you don't want to take Mom's word for it, check it this last word from FiveThirtyEight's On the Road series. It's almost enough to make you pity McCain - that guy was out organized from start to finish.

Obama is someone who learns from his mistakes and corrects them. Here's how Clinton won reelection: he never announced he was running and he started campaigning early for the time (like, two years before the actual election). Obama knows this. He will do these things.


4) Either the economic crisis will be resolved and Obama will be able to take credit for it, or it won't be resolved and the electorate will look to the Democratic party to fix it.

Reelections generally have more to do with the economy than anything else - it's the biggest reason Clinton won in 1996.

I believe that if anyone can solve this thing, it's our man Obama. But maybe he won't, or no one could - no matter.

The American electorate tends to favor Republicans on national security and Democrats on the economy. It's the number one reason Obama won this time out. Even if the economy is as screwed or more screwed than it is now, if Obama looks like he takes it seriously (and he will), he'll win reelection.

Don't buy it? Take 2004 as an example. That year was a national security election. The country was in deep trouble in two wars.

The American electorate still thought Bush was the only one who could be trusted with a national security crisis. It didn't matter that Bush was the one who had gotten us in to that mess in the first place - Americans trust Republicans with national security and Democrats with the economy, full stop.