"The more things change..."

There's lots of ranting going on in the Progressive blogging community these days, since November 4th, about centrism, bipartisanship, and a variety of other matters--from Joe Lieberman to Robert Gates to Hillary Clinton to Rahm Emanuel--which all circle back around to, essentially, the same conclusion (or, more accurately, concern):  Are we Progressives witnessing an alarmingly high level of successive Sister Souljah moments in recent days? And, is President-elect Obama's administration tacking too far to the right and thus alienating the very base that won him the Presidency?

(This is a sincere question to which I do not know the answer.)

Over the past 24 hrs., Glenn Greenwald, over at Salon.com, notes this may be the case in: "The mind of the Democratic leadership."

Ken Fireman and Hans Nichols over at Bloomberg Media (bloomberg.com) provide interesting, updated analysis early this morning that comes to the conclusion that President-elect Obama has moved closer over the weekend to naming Senator Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State; and, as a byproduct of that reality,  that the incoming President is also leaning more towards retaining Bush administration Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in the same role within the new administration's cabinet.

It's all right here: "Gates's Odds of Staying Under Obama Rise If Clinton at State."

Well, I thought things would slow down a little more around here than they have, since Election Day. But, Obama's preparations for taking office and the sinking economy, as well as the aftermath of the Proposition 8 vote in California, as well as down-to-the-wire Senate races in Alaska and Minnesota have dictated otherwise.

That being said, I'm feeling a little mischievous today, so I thought I'd bring this post from Markos over at DKos, "Research 2000 tracking poll accuracy," which has been on the top of the front page there for the past 45 mins. It looks to me like he's calling out our fearless leader, Jerome, front and center.

Now boys, take it out back during recess and let's have a good, old-fashioned playground brawl! LOL!

The New York Times is reporting in its print edition on Tuesday that President-elect Barack Obama spent a significant portion of his time in his meeting with President George Bush on Monday urging the current President to move forward immediately with an emergency bailout plan for U.S. automakers: "Obama Asks Bush to Provide Help for Automakers."

As reported in the Times story today and elsewhere, Bush is directly linking a completely separate issue--the passage of a free-trade agreement with Colombia--to his support for any auto industry bailout.
 

Is this what our government calls: "Accountability?"

Apparently, leading Republicans and Democrats are indicating that's the case.

There it was (and still is as I write this), buried near the bottom of this morning's Bloomberg.com "Breaking News" list of stories: Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Disclose.

Is the worst President in U.S. history actually getting something right? (Planning his transition?) Or, is it really that Bush just can't wait to get the hell out of Dodge?

Maybe it's a little bit of both.

In this diarist's opinion, perhaps the two most pressing issues our next President will face--matters that'll require virtually immediate input from our next President within days, if not hours, of his election tomorrow evening--well before January 20th, 2009, are the economy and the rapidly escalating nightmare in Afghanistan.

VIA CNN: Barack Obama's 86-year-old grandmother, Madeline Dunham, has passed away over the last hour in Hawaii from cancer, on the eve of the election.

How this will affect the balance of Senator Obama's schedule from now through the end of Election Day is unknown at this time.

But, as I write this, Donna Brazile is speculating on CNN that Obama will continue on for the next 36 hours, at which point he'll contend with the realities of the situation immediately thereafter.

So,  the worst president in history, to whom the most ethically conflicted Treasury Secretary in history reports, has just decided to put his proverbial foot down in the past hour: "White House tells banks to stop hoarding money."

You'd think, after pissing away $300 billion to the financial services sector in the first three quarters of this year, only to witness a steadily-worsening liquidity crisis, that these idiots would've learned something; because the last thing the self-serving, piggy banks were going to do in these circumstances was...you guessed it: lend money. I mean they all had serious losses to cover from eight years of an industry-gone-wild without significant regulatory enforcement;  and nobody could tell them what to do with their money, right?