Bumped

The latest tally looks even better for Democrat Mark Begich than the last one.

Ted Stevens (R): 147,004 votes (46.58 percent)
Mark Begich (D): 150,728 votes (47.76 percent)

Begich's lead now stands at 1.18 percentage points, or 3,724 votes.

Update [2008-11-18 21:10:23 by Jonathan Singer]: The Associated Press has called the race for Begich. That makes seven pick ups, and 58 to 40 seat advantage for the Democrats in the Senate (with two races still yet to be decided).

Jonathan raises the possibility that by giving Lieberman a pass, Obama could be operating on the assumption that he'll "have an easier go in forwarding his legislative agenda in the Senate with Lieberman beholden to him than Lieberman weaker, but mad at him."

First, there's really no evidence to support an assumption that Lieberman will feel either constrained or in debt now that Obama's allowed him to keep his gavel. Why? Because given his past actions, there's no reason to imagine Lieberman will finally start operating in good faith. For example, after Obama campaigned for Lieberman in his primary against Lamont and then stayed almost completely out of the general election, Joe certainly didn't act like like he owed his seat to Obama. Quite the contrary: Lieberman proceeded to endorse McCain and smear Obama throughout the Presidential election.

I also don't agree that "Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee." Had Lieberman been stripped of his Homeland Security chair, he would not have bolted to the Republican caucus (where he'd have less power). Rather, it was only an empty threat meant to sidetrack the traditional media. There's simply no way Lieberman would have started voting like a Republicans on more issues than he does now. But he would have been without subpoena power.

As I and others (including Josh Marshall and Jane Hamsher) have argued, the best governing decision would have been to replace Lieberman as chairman, since he's actually done a pretty awful job. Instead, Lieberman's record was ignored, and his dirty, gutter political tactics were condoned.

The Situation Room reported the breaking news that Eric Holder is Barack Obama's choice for Attorney General.

The AP:

Washington attorney Eric Holder is President-elect Barack Obama's top choice to be the next attorney general and aides have gone so far as to ask senators whether he would be confirmed, an Obama official and people close to the matter said Tuesday.

Holder, a former U.S. attorney who served as the No. 2 official in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton, would be the nation's first black attorney general.

Update [2008-11-18 17:53:30 by Todd Beeton]:CNN.com reports that "Holder has accepted the position but must still undergo a vetting process by the Obama transition team."

Today marks the three-year anniversary of my time as an editor at MyDD (having been commenting and writing a diary on the site for a long while before that). Since November 18, 2005, I have written roughly 2,400 posts, representing... well, a lot of time, energy and thought. It has been a blast, and I'm sure it will continue to into the future.

Some in the press may try to frame today's vote on Joe Lieberman, and specifically Barack Obama's actions in relation to the vote, on left versus right terms, that it was a Sister Souljah moment in a sense. Yet it seems to me that this actually fits more neatly into another frame -- namely that Obama putting policy above process.

During the general election, there were process arguments over whether or not it was correct for Obama to opt out of the public financing program, instead opting to fund his campaign privately. Leaving aside the debate over whether Obama made the right decision on a process level -- and I believe he did, because a campaign funded by millions of Americans giving on average a hundred or two hundred dollars is a publicly financed campaign, one that is not subject to the type of influence problems afflicted by campaigns relying more heavily on large dollar donations -- it's fairly apparent that at least part of the decision rested on the reality that Obama's likelihood of winning, and thus being able to enact progressive change, would be greater opting out of the system than it would be opting in. To put it another way, Obama put policy ends ahead of process.

The selection of Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff can be viewed in this frame as well. While some complained that Emanuel is too partisan, or that he is too tied to the previous Democratic administration -- process arguments, in a sense -- it appears that Obama wanted someone who had experience both in the White House and on Capitol Hill, and moreover someone who will be a bare-knuckles fighter on behalf of his administration and its policy goals. Again, putting policy over process.

Obama's buttressing of Lieberman's position within the Senate Democratic caucus also appears to fall within the realm of putting policy over process. No doubt Lieberman campaigned against Obama and would-be Democratic Senators, too. Process dictates (and I think it's right here) that Lieberman should not enjoy the benefits of the Democratic majority he undercut and campaigned against, retaining his chairmanship. Yet Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee -- particularly if he owed his chairmanship to Obama, which he does. Under this rationale, Obama will have an easier go in forwarding his legislative agenda in the Senate with Lieberman beholden to him than Lieberman weaker, but mad at him.

This isn't to say that Obama made the right decision, only that his actions with regards to Lieberman aren't necessarily best described in terms of left and right.

Not exactly what a Senator up for reelection in a state that favored the other party's presidential nominee wants to see.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist remains overwhelmingly popular with a 68 - 18 percent job approval rating that makes him a strong favorite for re-election in 2010, but Sen. Mel Martinez's 42 - 33 percent approval rating makes him much more vulnerable, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

[...]

Although Sen. Martinez gets a somewhat favorable job approval rating, only 36 percent of voters say he deserves another term, while 38 percent say no and 26 percent say they are not sure. If the election were today, 36 percent say they would vote for Martinez while 40 percent would support his unnamed Democratic opponent and 24 percent are undecided.

Senators with approval ratings south of the 50 percent mark are never in a great position to earn another term -- particularly when they have a negative reelect number. Combined with the polling from over the summer showing either Congressman Robert Wexler (whom I like as a candidate in this race) or state CEO CFO Alex Sink giving Martinez a tough time, and polling from the fall showing Congressmen Alan Boyd and Ron Klein both doing the same, it's fairly clear that Martinez will be a top target for the Democrats this coming cycle.

From The Washington Post

Lieberman agreed to surrender his position on the Environment and Public Works Committee, leaving the panel and his subcommittee chairmanship there. But Lieberman will remain chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and head of the subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee that oversees air and land power issues.

[...]

The deal was negotiated by Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), as well as Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).

The Democratic caucus voted 42-13 to accept it. Those voting included the six incoming senators for the 111th Congress. Obama has already resigned his seat and Vice-President-elect Joe Biden (D-Del.) was not present.

[...]

In a more than two-hour meeting inside the Old Senate Chamber of the Capitol, where 19th century compromises were hatched, Lieberman offered apologies for some of his remarks during the campaign.

"There are some that I made that I wish I had never made at all," Lieberman said later.

It appears as though four in five Democrats in the United States Senate are content with their committee leadership including a member who actively campaigned not only for the Republican Presidential nominee but also Republican Senators up for reelection this fall. I knew the Senate was a collegial place... I just didn't know it was this collegial.

Sounds like someone missed a few hugs:

Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question."

This "aide" volunteered a fairly profound confusion about why he believes we oppose Lieberman keeping his gavel; they seem to think this is just about being a reactionary pain.

Politics is not a game. And the opposition to Lieberman remaining chair of Homeland Security is grounded in a belief that the Connecticut independent will continue to abdicate his responsibility and undermine our party if he keeps his gavel.

But the substance of the disagreement is ignored.

Confusing your friends with your opponents is one of the worst mistakes you can make in politics.