You should watch this or listen to the video above. It’s of President Obama speaking to and then taking questions from the House GOP Caucus. While there are the talking point moments, overall this was one of the more fascinating interactions I’ve seen in American politics. It’s also the first time that Obama has, personally, directly engaged himself in changing the tone of politics in an activist manner, if you will, rather than simply leading by example. You can get a sense of what I’m talking about, if you don’t have time to listen to the whole thing, by listening to the last 12 minutes or so (from around 73:00). Some really decent, substantive conversation between Obama and the GOP House Caucus.

More like this, please.

I hope Obama follows through on having regular meetings with both leadership teams (w/ part televised?), and perhaps can make Q&A like this a regular part of the conversation. I would love our own version of prime minister’s questions.

Rick Warren gave the predictable and exclusively Christian invocation at the start of the inauguration. Rev. Joseph Lowery, on the other hand, gave an inclusive benediction, one that included many faiths and a bit of humor. I especially loved the way he finished.

I also think this was the first time I’ve heard a major politician in a speech as important as this acknowledge atheists.

Update: I realize some were offended by the ending. I thought it was humor to show how far we’ve come rather than an admonishment. It was funny and that it was included as a bit of throwback humor to complete the other 60’s bookend he began with.

I’ve some disjointed thoughts on the Obama team’s selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration. Those of you that follow me on Twitter have probably seen my disappointment about this pick. So far, the only sensible defense of this pick is on the “update” to this post over at Balloon Juice, namely that choosing Warren diminishes the real hate mongers on the religious right, Dobson and LaHaye.

I have some sympathy for this argument, as well as the argument that the Obama camp used reaching out to McClurkin in South Carolina during the primaries. Big tent and all that, I get it.

I still think that it’s important for those of us that disagree with Obama’s selection to criticize it. Otherwise, we’re just the Republican party, where everything “dear leader Bush” does is right by definition. Criticism, meant constructively, is important.

That’s why I got annoyed reading Ana Marie Cox’s tweet that said, “Here’s the thing about being the not-Bush president: All of you upset about the Warren pick? He didn’t win because of you.”

That’s a pretty silly thing to say. For one thing, we know that he could count on us and take us “for granted,” as Cox explained later. That’s not the point. We have a right to criticize the pick and, I think, an obligation to say to him that this choice is wrong. We’re not Republicans, marching in lock step with the party. Warren lied about Prop 8 (it wouldn’t restrict speech) and argued that the Bible justified assassination, in addition to general issue disagreement. If you believe gay marriage is a civil rights issue, I don’t see how you sit silently without speaking up about your disappointment with this choice.

The other thought is that if the economy is better, I don’t think having Warren on stage for a short while is going to swing many votes in 2012. There’s really no reason to honor Warren with this slot. That’s part of my problem, that this isn’t just including Warren but giving him the honor of giving this invocation in the most attended, most historic inauguration in recent history. There are other ways to involve voices like Warren later. It doesn’t need to be here.

So, count me among those “upset” about this selection. I don’t think Obama is selling out, nor am I too worried about Obama on abortion or gay rights. I still don’t agree with this pick, and I still think it’s meaningful to speak up. Not sure why it bothers people like Ana Marie Cox…

I’m really surprised at the inanity of the attempts to smear Obama because of Blagojevich’s misdeeds. Even the guys on Hardball last night couldn’t actually put anything remotely legitimate on Obama, and it was amusing watching them dance around trying to point out the “serious questions” and “wiggle room” in Obama’s public statements about the scandal.

The silliness is pretty obvious when you think about what normally happens in this situation. I’m unsure about why people are surprised that Obama’s aides might have talked to Blagojevich about what Obama would like to have happen with his Senate seat. He’s the outgoing Senator, soon to be President of the United States. Listening to a recommendation from his team hardly seems scandalous. The federal indictment makes it pretty clear that Obama’s team wasn’t willing to offer anything aside from a “thank you” and that’s the end of that. Obama has even promised to detail which staff members have had contact with the Governor about the Senate seat.

Yet, the media is going non-stop trying to disect Obama’s statements and tarnish his reputation. (BTW, Obama’s promise to disclose the contacts seems to be the admission that Eugene Robinson pines for in his column)

What’s the point? It looks like Republicans are going back to the Whitewater playbook. Today, Pat Buchanan wrote a column calling for a — you guessed it — special prosecutor to look into this “scandal.” Here’s the conclusion of his column:

Indeed, the U.S. Senate should probably make the confirmation of Eric Holder as attorney general, the Clintonite who midwifed the pardons of Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican terrorists, contingent on his naming an independent counsel in the Senategate scandal.

As for the Bush-to-Barack transition, which Americans have applauded as graceful and uplifting, it is now mired in mud.

Yes, indeed, it is — a sad day for America.

Thankfully, the Republicans don’t control Congress, and hopefully the Obama team was paying attention to how the Republicans played this game in the 90s. Should Holder be confirmed, I hope he will have the good judgement not to fall into this trap. A rock solid (Republican appointed) prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, is already on the case. Let him do his job.

I want to expand a bit on the little blips I’ve been sending out via Twitter tonight. Beyond the issues, the election of Barack Obama as President Elect is very, very important to me personally. It’s actually quite simple why.

For a long time, I’ve believed, through my reading of history and my education that time heals wounds and that some wounds take a very long time to heal. We often skip over the fact that many people who lived and grew up in a time of segregation and racial strife are still alive today. In fact, many are just entering their 50s. So I’ve always believed that we would need to “wait” until that generation passed on to really see past race as a society, and certainly to see past race enough to elect an African-American President.

This election has shown me that it doesn’t have to be that way. We can change the country for the better if enough people stick to their convictions and fight for what is right. We can do this in a short amount of time.

We found a candidate who was capable and talented. We were determined to help push back when people tried to hold him back because of prejudice about his race, his name, or his family history. We found the reason to fight not because he was African-American, but because he was too good a candidate to let the old prejudices hold him back. The army of volunteers and young people led that principled fight. Because of them, we have a very talented President Elect with the potential to be a special President.

Tonight, we elected the best candidate I’ve seen in the last 20 years. As a bonus, we also elected the first minority President in our history.

But tonight we’ve also seen the passage of hateful amendments in California, Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas affecting the lives of gay Americans. Before this election, I might’ve said that in 40 years, we’ll finally protect the rights of gay Americans. Tonight, though, I have hope that we can reverse these measures in much less time.

This is the lesson I take from this election. We need to continue to fight for what is right and educate and convince those who disagree with us today. We can do this sooner than we think, if we just do what’s right and defend our principles.

Yes, we can.

I’ll leave you with the end of Obama’s speech on the eve of the election, a speech meant to fire up his volunteers and his GOTV effort. I think it applies directly to what I talked about above.

PS. One last thing: To the many volunteers and staffers of the Obama campaign, I have been amazed at the time and effort you’ve put into the campaign. I am inspired and awed by the work you’ve done. Thank you.

Today is a huge day and the most important thing you can do is vote. It doesn’t matter who you’re voting for, whether you think your candidate has it in the bag or has no chance. Get out, take the time, and vote.

It’s very hard for me to put into words how important I think this election is. We’re witnessing the single greatest decline in American soft power in the last century. It is most visible in the financial crisis but the signs are there in our national debt and rising income and wealth inequality in this country.

I’ve also talked over this past year about politics becoming too much of a “team” sport, where people put their allegiances to their party over what’s ultimately best for the nation. I know a number of you identify as “Republican” and thus have difficulty pulling the lever for a Democrat. I’d like to take one last chance to change your mind about this. We’re all in this together, after all.

The fact of the matter is that on most Republican issues, those that Barry Ritholtz today described as “low taxes, balanced budget, strong defense, no unnecessary overseas involvement, and no government involvement in personal matters”, Barack Obama is the better choice.

He has proposed a sensible balance of trying to cut taxes for those people that will spend (and thus generate follow on GDP) with keeping his proposals revenue neutral (the much maligned taxes on those making $250K or more). On every policy proposal he has on his web site, he has marked out areas where he will make adjustments in order to get the funding for those programs. He has suggested focusing our military efforts on the people behind 9/11, not some ambitious (and, quite frankly, insane) program of spreading democracy by gunpoint. He has proposed money to invest in our military while cutting programs such as FCS that don’t apply well to our current conflicts.

I realize that there are concerns among moderate Republicans about Obama’s emphasis on healthcare and social nets, but there are good business reasons for doing this. I can’t really lay out the arguments in favor of this completely, but the bottom line is that we’re a nation of consumers, and more people consuming means more work for everyone else. Wages, financial security, and growing real median wages are pretty critical for our nation to grow. I’ve posted links recently about the impact of various forms of stimulus on GDP. His policies are pro-growth.

In fact, that’s why I think he’s such a good choice. He’s been very pragmatic with his policy positions, backed by good economics and good science. That’s the biggest pro for Obama. Beyond that, Barack Obama has run a singularly consistent, coherent campaign. I hope you pull the Obama lever, fill in the Obama circle, or touch the Obama button when you vote.

(as an aside, it’s amazing how much scrutiny people are giving to Obama’s policies. McCain has given so little detail and yet no one gives it a second thought or questions how he’s going to pay for anything. Third party candidates usually don’t lay out budget details at all and yet they’re “better” than Obama… no idea how this makes sense…)

Oh, and one other thing: FatMixx will have a new post automatically up at noon today containing MSNBC’s results for several key battleground states and CT. The national tracker will stay up at left until at least tomorrow. Feel free to hang out in the comments of that post today. I’m hosting a small gathering here to watch the results come in. I’ll still be on Twitter and FM during the evening. Have fun, everyone, and GET OUT AND VOTE!

This one will be brief: people interested in technology issues, startups, entrepreneurship, and the Internet should go read Tim O’Reilly’s post on why he’s voting for Obama. I also want to link to my own “Why I’m Voting for Obama” post which links to both Lawrence Lessig (expert on the law and technology) and Marc Andreessen’s (co-founder of Netscape) posts on why they’re voting for Obama.

All three of these guys get the technology world and what it takes to build good startups. They, along with other Silicon Valley leaders, including Google’s Eric Schmidt, are all supporting Obama. On these issues, he’s simply the far better candidate.

As we get closer to the election, I’ll try to single out a few posts here and there that lay out the affirmative case for voting for Obama and Biden.

Today’s installment is this post from Amanda Marcotte where she lays out the feminist perspective on voting for Obama/Biden. While the word feminist is an anathema for hard-right-wing Republicans, feminism is simply about women’s health, equal pay for equal work, and for the basic equality that all people deserve. From that perspective, Amanda summarizes how Obama and Biden have furthered womens’ rights with sound policies and principled votes. I agree with her, and with Josh’s recent post on the matter.

I also read the Elaine Lafferty piece Marcotte mentions a few days ago (the day I panned the Daily Beast on Twitter) and thought it exhibited an amazing sense of snobbery and condescension. I really don’t understand the Daily Beast. So far, I think it sucks, and it sucks in large part because of that snobbery. I mean, hell, watch the interview with Tina Brown, The Daily Beast founder, to see what I mean:

pretentious, much?

I’ve refrained from blogging about the election because, well, I’ve got nothing to say that you all haven’t heard before or can find anywhere else. I’ve tried to pass on articles that provided more than the typical horse race coverage. (No polls on FM except the final election results!)

I’m going to take a slight break on this policy to tie some links together because, quite frankly, they’re really important and the sign of things to come.

The first theme is that the Republicans are setting up a bogus voter fraud conspiracy in the mind of their supporters in order to challenge the legitimacy of what looks to be a pretty solidly Democratic year. This is dangerous stuff because it creates anger and fear about the election over unfounded allegations. Let’s review the facts here:

1. Josh Marshall summarizes the issues with the ACORN fraud allegations here. Steve Benen does the honors here.
2. There hasn’t been any vote fraud. How can I say that? Because no votes have been cast yet. Oops. Forgot about early voting, which has started. I’m still pretty confident no fraud has happened yet, because of the safeguards that exist.
3. What the right wing is going nuts about is potential registration fraud. It’s not even clear how often that has happened because many of these reports are about cards flagged by ACORN’s own internal checks, but still have to be turned in by law:
   

   Kettenring said ACORN can’t destroy cards, even suspicious ones — which it flags with a sheet labeling it ”problematic.” He said that happened in this case when the forms were submitted to Orange County, where the registrations were collected.

4. Remember the U.S. Attorney scandal

Keep in mind that this has been a focus of the DOJ for the last 8 years and they have yet to prosecute a single successful voter fraud case. That’s because the idea of widespread voter fraud is stupid on it’s face. Voter suppression and disenfranchisement is a key strategy for Republicans. Keep in mind that they’re looking for “veterans, policeman, security personnel and firefighters to work as poll watchers on election day at inner city polling places” in several states now. This isn’t about fair elections but about intimidation.

The other major issue I want to mention is how nasty this race has become over the last few weeks. It’s going to get much, much worse if current reports are to be believed. People at Palin rallies are screaming “terrorist” and “kill him” while there are several videos of McCain/Palin supporters at events saying ridiculously ignorant things.

This is what they’re down to.

They’re now paying for robo-calls repeating the same lies that McCain has tried to spread at campaign rallies and during the last debate. He’s running these calls all over the country even though he disavowed this tactic in the 2000 elections. Of course, he hired the guys who did this to him in 2000, so perhaps it’s not surprising.

The point is that blatant racism is coming out of the woodwork while unhinged surrogates go on TV calling Obama un-American. They are trying to get you, your friends, and your fellow Americans to be afraid of Obama and Biden. They’ve got nothing else to run on, and it’s turning into a hate fest of racism and bigotry. They know they’re going to lose and are setting this election up to be won on hate or, if that doesn’t work, are getting ready to set up the next witch hunt against a Democratic President.

Luckily, the Obama campaign is fighting back.

It’s up to the rest of us, though. This isn’t what our country is about, and it’s not how people should win elections. If you’re a conservative, you should still vote for Obama. Donate what you can, and keep in mind that your time might be more valuable than your money at this point. Volunteer if you have time, and call friends and family in key swing states. If you’re an iPhone user, download the Obama iPhone app. It’ll help you prioritize those calls. If you have family in a swing state, make the great schlep.

This is a critical election, and the choice is stark. You’re seeing one campaign operating on the same playbook since the beginning, with the same issue priorities and the same principles. He’s been able to do this because he and his campaign have been on the right side of these issues from the beginning. McCain has lurched from arch-conservative to populist to confused over the last few months. He’s only thinking about the campaign, which won’t help when he finally gets into office. They talk about us needing to know who the real Barack Obama is. I think it would help if we knew who the real John McCain is this week.

Hilzoy of the Washington Monthly and Obsidian Wings has taken the time to list out any significant amendment and bill that McCain or Obama has passed in the 109th and 110th Congress (the only times when both were in the Senate together). The post is in three parts here, here, and here.

She lists out her assumptions and guidelines. It’s a good list, and she refrains from drawing conclusions.

Looking through the list, it’s pretty clear that it’s hard to draw much from it aside from one key thing: Obama has put more actual legislation forward over the past 4 years than McCain by a significant amount, even while running for President. There are probably a lot of reasons for the difference.

Either way, it seems criticism of Obama as a do-nothing is unfair.

OK, this made me laugh. Another problem with having largely monochromatic backgrounds on a giant screen behind you during a speech. Especially since those backgrounds were reportedly there because your staff couldn’t figure out the difference between Walter Reed Middle School and Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

(and if you don’t get the headline or the Rick Astley selection, wikipedia to the rescue!

(via Pandagon)

One of those mocking, derisive but ultimately silly attacks made by both Giuliani and Palin yesterday had to do with mocking Obama’s time as a community organizers. I’ve read many different posts today defending the work community organizers do but Obama, as you might expect, puts the right perspective on the issue. Steve Benen has more background.

(he slightly misspeaks at the start — it was 20 years ago, not 3).

John Cole, lapsed Republican, has the best summary of tonight I’ve found:

The best thing about the night- as the press is dissecting Obama’s masterful performance, I flipped to a panel on PBS about the speech. Dolores Kearns Goodwin was talking at length, in the shadow of the Obama speech, that McCain needs to show he can use a teleprompter.

They are so well and truly f****d, and they deserve it.

Seriously, I was thinking about this while watching Obama. If McCain can make it through his speech without 5 awkward grins, I’ll be impressed. And that’s a pretty damn low bar after watching Obama, Kerry, Gore, and (unbelievably good) Clinton.

The second observation: I mentioned to Heidi that Obama still wasn’t quite as good as Bill Clinton yet. The thing is, I don’t remember Clinton being as good as Obama is now at the start of his first term. Does anyone remember his convention speech? I don’t think I watched it, being a Republican back then…

Update: Who is this man and what have you done with Pat Buchanan:

Um, wow and wtf.

I don’t think I really appreciated how much Barack Obama’s candidacy as a simple matter of history would matter to me personally today. At some point on Monday, seeing Michelle Obama speaking up there on that stage at the Pepsi Center, it hit me what was happening. In my lifetime, we might actually see an African American president. We just might elect a man whose family emigrated from somewhere that wasn’t Europe, who has grown up in an ethnically and racially diverse family.

My story is different, but only in the details. I’m not sure I really felt that until Monday night when I saw her up there.

I also thought about what it must be like to be black in this country and to see Michelle Obama on stage that night. And I realized that when Obama speaks about hope, he and his family will provide that to so many people just by being there on that stage.

But tonight, I was reminded about why I started supporting this candidate in the spring after Chris Dodd dropped out. Even as Dodd was failing to make up ground against the rest of the field, my friends and family kept dropping little tidbits in my ear. Look at his advisors, they’re experts with unique and creative perspectives. I’d say something like, “I wish there was a candidate who’d consider X and try this out” and someone would point out, “Well it’s funny you should say that. Obama has a plan like that.”

These were not Obama supporters from the beginning, but people who looked at names like Samantha Power and the work she’s done understanding genocide, or Cass Sunstein and Laurence Tribe, and realized that this guy might actually be walking the walk of changing Washington.

Then, there were the posts by Lessig (1,2) and the big one by Marc Andreessen both pretty much pushing me in the Obama column for good.

The theme from all of these posts and tidbits of information was that this was a candidate that took policy seriously. It wasn’t entirely a political or ideological game to him, but one in which actually solving problems was an interesting challenge.

The Andreessen post, in particular, reminded me of a college economics course I had with someone who was an economic advisor for George H. W. Bush (not junior) and Clinton. He related his experiences talking to both and said that while he didn’t agree with everything Clinton wanted to do, he came away impressed with Clinton’s grasp of policy and his adept understanding of complex issues. Compared to the elder Bush, Clinton wowed this economist. Clinton was engaged, curious, and asked good questions.

And that made me think about why Clinton was such a good President. It wasn’t ideology or partisanship, but the fact that even when he tried to score political points with bills, he didn’t create policies that damaged the country. That competence came from an interest in getting things right, in a concern for his legacy, and in an understanding of the downstream effects of his policies in the White House.

His administration was frustrating at times, and I disagreed with it regularly, but he was always at least competent. Even Andrew Sullivan, conservative author and scholar (and harsh critic of the Clintons), wrote this week of Clinton’s “smart record in office.”

Andreessen captured what I want in the next President. Here’s a bit from his blog post:

Early in 2007, a friend of mine who is active in both high-tech and politics called me up and said, let’s go see this first-term Senator, Barack Obama, who’s ramping up to run for President.

And so we did — my friend, my wife Laura, and me — and we were able to meet privately with Senator Obama for an hour and a half.

…

First, this is a normal guy.

I’ve spent time with a lot of politicians in the last 15 years. Most of them talk at you. Listening is not their strong suit — in fact, many of them aren’t even very good at faking it.

Senator Obama, in contrast, comes across as a normal human being, with a normal interaction style, and a normal level of interest in the people he’s with and the world around him.

We were able to have an actual, honest-to-God conversation, back and forth, on a number of topics. In particular, the Senator was personally interested in the rise of social networking, Facebook, Youtube, and user-generated content, and casually but persistently grilled us on what we thought the next generation of social media would be and how social networking might affect politics — with no staff present, no prepared materials, no notes. He already knew a fair amount about the topic but was very curious to actually learn more. We also talked about a pretty wide range of other issues, including Silicon Valley and various political topics.

With most politicians, their curiosity ends once they find out how much money you can raise for them. Not so with Senator Obama — this is a normal guy.

Second, this is a smart guy.

I bring this up for two reasons. One, Senator Obama’s political opponents tend to try to paint him as some kind of lightweight, which he most definitely is not. Two, I think he’s at or near the top of the scale of intelligence of anyone in political life today.

You can see how smart he is in his background — for example, lecturer in constitutional law at University of Chicago; before that, president of the Harvard Law Review.

But it’s also apparent when you interact with him that you’re dealing with one of the intellectually smartest national politicians in recent times, at least since Bill Clinton. He’s crisp, lucid, analytical, and clearly assimilates and synthesizes a very large amount of information — smart.

That post, along with Lessig, plus the significant amount of little details that were piling up in the back of my head, put me firmly in this camp, made me believe that this candidate will be the best hope, yes, hope, for a better course for this country. A course that is outcome oriented rather than ideologically driven and one that considers the real effects of policy rather than adhering to the dictates of the Club for Growth or the laughable Laffer curve.

So, yes, his background, his race, and his personal story resonate with me. But it started with, and continues to be, the belief I have in his judgement, his sound policy choices, and that pragmatism. That’s what brought me to support him, and that’s why I’m still here.

Which brings me to why I wrote this post tonight. While watching him up there on that stage, realizing how historic a moment this was and how historic it might become on November 4th, I realized something else.

I’m actually going to get to vote for someone this time. I realized that this is a regular guy, who started with no privileged position, whose family built their successes on the backs of sound American policies like the GI Bill and student loans and home ownership. His story stands as a testament to what we can do when government provides people with opportunities and hope. His candidacy is about more than race, it’s about everything that makes this country work. And that, folks, makes me proud to be an American.

The fact that his story and the historic nature of his candidacy are secondary, though, makes me even prouder to vote for him.

The right candidate at the right time for the right reasons. Awesome.

One last note: in all honesty, while I don’t have an Andreessen-like post about Hillary Clinton, what I said above could’ve equally applied to her as well. I’ve been pretty harsh on her campaign, and I’ve been thinking about what Kim said in the comment thread a few posts back. The bottom line here is that there were two phenomenal candidates on the Democratic side. She also stands as an example of what good can come from ordinary people, and is a smart Senator and a good policy thinker in her own right.

Today’s speech and it’s emotional power help me understand a bit more why so many women identified so strongly with her candidacy. It’s again a testament to the nation and to this party for being able to field two strong candidates from traditionally power-starved groups. I hope that I’ll be able to witness the first female President in the U.S. soon too. Wouldn’t that be a great goal for a lifetime?

Update: I’ve been rereading this now and again and cleaning up the grammar and poor writing. I like this post, and though it’s not particularly well written, it feels “right” to me, for me, and about what I’m thinking. I’m surprised I was able to get 1100 words (not including that long block quote) out so fast.

Considering the Palin announcement today (8/29), what I wrote is even more important to me. Obama isn’t just “a first.” He’s a first with the right characteristics to be a great President.