Todd the Invulnerable is comfortably sitting out in West St. Louis County, where breaking 40 percent is a victory for any Democrat, smugly preaching that God is a Republican. Here’s a paragraph from a Thanksgiving mailer Akin just sent to Republican constituents:

Thank you once again for standing with us in our re-election to Congress. Though I’m thankful for our own success, many of us are left with a deep sense of apprehension about the damage America may suffer under President-elect Obama. It’s important for us to recall that God’s ways are higher than our own, and what seems dark now may lead to unexpected blessing. The Pilgrims’ perseverance under suffering led to the founding of a great nation. The second Clinton term led to a Republican House. Let us stand unswervingly on the side of right as God gives us the light to see it. We can do no better.

This paragraph is self-deluding and hilarious on so many levels that I don’t know where to start. He speaks, apparently, in the royal we, but he couldn’t read tea leaves much less God’s will. Was it God’s will for the Republicans to steal the last two presidential elections? Was it God’s will that we start an unnecessary, ruinous war? Torture people? Pollute His creation for the sake of filthy lucre? Ignore the coming global warming crisis (talk about the End Times!)? Loot the economy till it tanks so hard that if Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, and Ernest Angely all laid hands on, for “God’s sake”, they couldn’t bring that baby back? (… But Obama might.)

I’m feeling like a Baptist minister on Sunday morning reeling off a litany of Republican sins. Feel free to add your own, and we’ll end it with the outing Valerie Plame.

Far as I’m concerned, any Catholic who voted for McCain and Akin needs to go to confession. And I hope the priest gives him heavy penance for sheer stupidity.

Photo courtesy of Famous Why

Sort of.

One of the nice things about actually winning an election is seeing your candidate’s bumper stickers still on vehicles.

Organized labor! That’s a “Carpenters’ District Council of Greater St. Louis and Vicinity” sticker on the left.

Considering that I still see “W ’04” and “Bush/Cheney ’04” bumper stickers on vehicles (and we had to look at them for four years) I have no problem with Obama triumphalism in the form of bumper stickers. And considering the continuation of McCain/Palin defiance:

The cult of the lost cause…

The cult of the lost cause, part 2

…I’m good with Obama triumphalism. Just to remind them of what actually happened. In case their memories about the election prove to be as reliable as their memories of everything else their candidates and their right wingnut cable talking heads have said and done.

It’s enough to bring a smile to your face and brighten up your day – maniacal cackle is optional.

Jim Jackson (D), who lost to Denny Hoskins (r) in the 121st Legislative District open seat race by less than 1% of the vote in the November general election, filed the paperwork today for a recount with the office of Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.

Official Election Returns

State of Missouri General Election  – 2008 General Election

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

As announced by the Board of State Canvassers

on Tuesday, December 02, 2008

State Representative – District 121 – Summary

Candidate Party Votes % of Votes

 Hoskins, Denny L. REP 7,004 50.5%

 Jackson, Jim DEM 6,875 49.5%

Total Votes   13,879

The results of the November general election were certified by Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan on December 2nd. Recounts can be requested within seven days after certification.

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 115

Election Authorities and Conduct of Elections

Section 115.601

Recount authorized when less than one percent difference in vote –recount, defined.

115.601. 1. Any contestant in a primary or other election contest who was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast for the office and any contestant who received the second highest number of votes cast for that office if two or more are to be elected and who was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast, or any person whose position on a question was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast on the question, shall have the right to a recount of the votes cast for the office or on the question.

2. In cases where the candidate filed or the ballot question was originally filed with an election authority as defined in section 115.015, such recount shall be requested in accordance with the provisions of section 115.531 or 115.577 and conducted under the direction of the court or the commissioner representing the court trying the contest according to the provisions of this subchapter.

3. In cases where the candidate filed or the ballot question was originally filed with the secretary of state, the defeated candidate or the person whose position on a question was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast on the question shall be allowed a recount pursuant to this section by filing with the secretary of state a request for a recount stating that the person or the person’s position on a question was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast. Such request shall be filed not later than seven days after certification of the election. The secretary of state shall notify all concerned parties of the filing of the request for a recount. The secretary of state shall authorize the election authorities to conduct a recount pursuant to this section if the requesting party or his position on a question was defeated by less than one percent of the votes cast. The secretary of state shall conduct and certify the results of the recount as the official results in the election within twenty days of receipt of the aforementioned notice of recount.

4. Whenever a recount is requested pursuant to subsection 3 of this section, the secretary of state shall determine the number of persons necessary to assist with the recount and shall appoint such persons equally from lists submitted by the contestant and the opponent who received more votes or a person whose position on a question received more votes than the contestant’s position on that question. Each person appointed pursuant to this section shall be a disinterested person and a registered voter of the area in which the contested election was held. Each person so appointed shall take the oath prescribed for and receive the same pay as an election judge in the jurisdiction where the person is registered. After being sworn not to disclose any facts uncovered by the recount, except those which are contained in the report, the contestant and the opponent who received more votes or a person whose position on a question received more votes than the contestant’s position on that question shall be permitted to be present in person or represented by an attorney at the recount and to observe the recount. Each recount shall be completed under the supervision of the secretary of state with the assistance of the election authorities involved, and the persons appointed to assist with the recount shall perform such duties as the secretary of state directs. Upon completion of any duties prescribed by the secretary of state the persons appointed to assist with the recount shall make a written and signed report of their findings. The findings of the persons appointed to assist with the recount shall be prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, but any person present at the examination of the votes may be a witness to contradict the findings. No one other than the secretary of state, the election authorities involved, the contestant and the other witnesses described in this subsection, their attorneys, and those specifically appointed by the secretary of state to assist with the recount shall be present during any recount conducted pursuant to this section.

5. For purposes of this section, “recount” means one additional counting of all votes counted for the office or on the question with respect to which the recount is requested.

Last week, sarah jo posted a diary that I think needs more attention than it got.  Mr. Temporiti, members of the state committee: Is anybody listening?

Let’s Keep it Going

by: sarah jo

Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 15:33:37 PM CST    

From what I’m hearing and reading, there are a lot of Obama supporters eager and willing to charge into the next phase of party building in Missouri.  Now that we’ve been trained to ID voters, discuss their issues and persuade them to vote for Obama, why let the fire go out?  Why not set up permanent Democratic offices around the state with the goal of continuing to build party support, recruiting and grooming candidates for 2010, and pitching in to support President Obama and Governor Nixon when their policies and ideas are attacked by the other side?

There must be a way to coordinate with the party’s state-level apparatus other than just access to the VAN (although that IS a really neat system.)  What if we could talk the state committee into budgeting some funds for basic things like rent, utilities, internet connection, etc.  Groups with at least some track record and decent organizational skills could apply for grants, e.g., $12,000 per year, spelling out their goals and timetables.  E.g., Identifying a set number of Democrats in a specific geographical area.  OR sponsoring monthly or quarterly political events/fundraisers.  Or setting up committees like those proposed by former Chair of the Mo Party, Roger Wilson.  That was a good idea, but nothing came of it.  If there are new volunteers joining local clubs and central committees who have great ideas, why not nurture them by providing a physical space for them to meet and work?  AND a permanent, year-round local phone number easily accessed by phone book or online.  

If we’ve learned nothing else from Howard Dean and Barack Obama, we’ve learned that “top of the ticket” candidates getting all the resources doesn’t work.  Building the party from the bottom up does.  Does anyone else think it’s worth approaching the state committee about this?

Here are three comments from the original diary:

Half the battle is showing up  

Contact your local party committee (the officers, by county, are on the MDP web site), roll up your sleeves, and get started. In some places there already is a year around presence.

There are also some web sites for local groups on the MDP web site.

543,895 votes

by: Michael Bersin @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 15:47:48 PM CST

local dem groups

Michael,

Thank you for the information, but I am already “showing up.”  I am a central committee woman in Franklin County and served as office manager at our campaign hdqs in Union from July to November.

What I’m asking is how the state and national party officials will support keeping the local groups going. We have many creative, passionate new volunteers now but central committee officers who don’t know how to get them involved. These officers were just re-elected in August for another two-year term.  Their intentions are good, but they just are not good at getting people organized into work groups.  So the committee members themselves are forming new sub-committees to do things like fill the vacancies on the central committee, brainstorm ways of recruting and supporting viable candidates for 2010, etc.  If there were some help from the state level to fund a physical space for us to do this work, we’d have a much better shot at keeping these wonderful new activists.  Obviously this is being discussed nationally – see below.

Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:15 pm (PST)

Huffington Post

How Dems Can Keep Party Going

November 24, 2008

The sweeping victories enjoyed by the Democratic Party this November have been credited to three major catalysts: Barack Obama, for his campaign and fundraising efforts; the campaign committees, for their influential fifty-state-strategy; and President Bush, for producing the most opposition-friendly political climate since Richard Nixon.

These post-election acknowledgments ignore one crucial factor. In the past two years the progressive movement has built an infrastructure that, while still in its relatively nascent stages, can be tremendously influential.

Groups like Progressive Accountability, CAP Action Fund, National Security Network, Women’s Voices Women’s Vote, Brave New Films and others (many of them unions), went largely unheralded during the election cycle. But behind the scenes, they put in place a system that churned up opposition research, helped influence the media, charted out the electoral landscape, and was often seamless in delivering a message. In short, they beat the GOP at its own game.

And yet, weeks after their work is finished, there is uncertainty about what’s next.

The Obama team has the resources to maintain its strategic advantages. The DNC is committed to continuing the 50-state-strategy even after Howard Dean’s departure. But Democratic officials are still exploring ways to ensure that an infrastructure that took more than a decade to assemble remains intact.

“The Democratic Party now has, for the first time in a generation, superior infrastructure and really good research,” Paul Begala, a famed strategist who often worked with these groups, told me a few weeks ago. “As a Democrat I want the party to continue to do that. And I feel very confident that they will. If you believe, as I do, that politics is about ideas, how you argue and channel those ideas matters most. It is more important than knocking on doors, because once you knock on a door and someone answers what do you tell them?”

The benefits of a stable infrastructure — which includes outside groups, shared data, coordinated communications, and systems that harness young talent — are painfully clear. Beyond keeping voters active, it can give the party tremendous leverage over both lawmakers and the press. A veteran of the Clinton years recalled how each day during that administration, Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson “were echoing the RNC’s talking points and we were beaten to the punch.”

“We didn’t have a capacity to get out there on a moment’s notice,” he added. “We didn’t have our ‘own’ media.”

——————————————————————————–

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. WE are the ones we’ve been waiting for. WE are the change that we seek.” Barack Obama

by: sarah jo @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 07:25:36 AM CST

The new state Democratic committee…

…was elected on November 22nd. Contact the MDP to get their contact information (the folks from the 2006-2008 term are listed on-line now). Write or call those folks to let them know what you’d like them to do. Missouri DNC members were elected to four year terms at the state Democratic Convention earlier this year. Let them know what you’ve got on your mind.

543,895 votes

by: Michael Bersin @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:09:52 AM CST

On Sunday, Claire McCaskill appeared  on talk TV, defending Obama for naming Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates to his cabinet:

McCaskill spoke on Fox News Sunday, opposite Senator Lindsey Graham. She tried to push back on claims that the two powerful personalities of Obama and Clinton may collide.

“Obviously, Barack Obama is going to set the policy, but he will listen to different views,” McCaskill said. “He is not afraid to be challenged by people around him. He wants to be challenged,” she said.

She went on to defend his choice of keeping on Secretary of Defense Bill Gates.

“Let me say this about Secretary Gates. Even though there may have been times I disagreed with him and maybe Barack Obama disagreed with him, this is a man who clearly holds the highest level of the military accountable for mistakes, which has been very impressive to all of us,” she said. “He has solid relationships on both sides of the aisle. And what these picks say about Barack Obama is that the kind of change that he’s embracing is that you don’t just pick the people who were on your side during the campaign. You pick the best you can find. That’s an important change for Washington,” she added.

Indeed, Obama has chosen a number of conservatives like Gates, Geithner and Summers for his cabinet and few if any progressives. Hmm. If I were choosing people for those or any other cabinet positions, I’d want at least some of my advisors to be of the deepest, darkest blue hue. After all, progressives were right about the foolishness of attacking Iraq, right about the dangers of deregulation, right about the science of climate change and right about requiring our president to acquire FISA warrants.

Robert Kuttner, founding co-editor of The American Prospect, on the other hand, lays out the argument that Obama could be following in the Lincolnesque mold. A chapter in his new book, Obama’s Challenge, describes how three great presidents–Lincoln, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson in regard to civil rights–moved the country toward their goals. Lincoln, especially, believed in purple cabinets. Kuttner offers two observations about how he led:    

First, Lincoln’s great challenge as president was not just to preserve the Union, or even to free the slaves. It was to win over public sentiment among what today would be called opinion leaders and the people generally. Lincoln gradually transformed how different segments of society thought about the problem of slavery, the challenge  of rebuilding the Union, and the role of government in reconstruction and economic development. Out of impossible disunity, he built something close to national consensus.

After more than a century and a half, the popular conception of Lincoln is of the president who saved the Union and freed the slaves. Often overlooked is the fact that holding together the North was almost as difficult a task as conquering and then reintegrating the South. “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” Lincoln had warned in 1858, paraphrasing scripture. But in the war years, a divided house was a fitting description not just of the sundered Union, but of the fractious North as well. Loyalists to the Union included Radical Republicans who wanted both immediate liberation of the slaves and severe punishment of the South; War Democrats who favored a much more gradualist approach; Peace Democrats or “Copperheads” who were ready to abandon the slaves in exchange for a negotiated peace; and citizens of border states, who had narrowly opted to stay with the Union but wanted to keep their slaves.

Second, what enabled Lincoln to hold this coalition together and move it toward a viable national policy had everything to do with Lincoln’s character. “Malice toward none” was not just a felicitous phrase for how Lincoln hoped to treat the conquered and ravaged South. It was how he conducted his daily human relations and mastered politics.

Lincoln’s “team of rivals” included all but the most extreme representatives of these diverse factions. The cabinet was a hothouse of intrigue. Lincoln held it together with exceptional courtesy and respect, and a capacity to lead by example and by teaching. What made people his allies and admirers was not just his keen intellect and good humor. More importantly, it was his kindness, decency, idealism, and honor. He went out of his way to let people know that they were valued when he might have chosen to humiliate them. This trait reflected not just the imperatives of the time–he could not afford to sacrifice even a single potential ally–but also his abiding sense of how one treated people.

I can well imagine Obama treating people of other political persuasions with the same courtesy and respect that Lincoln did. The question is whether we can be sure they are of a different political persuation from him.

In this vein, Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota have been noticing the troubling use of the term “pragmatic” to describe Obama’s cabinet appointments. The media, to avoid admitting that some of them–Geithner and Summers, most notably–are conservative, use a term that is neither liberal nor conservative: pragmatic.

Sirota frets that if the Geithners are pragmatic, what does that make us liberals: pie-in-the-sky idiots?

Our own history during the Great Depression indicates that the pragmatic way to deal with such a massive crisis is through some good old fashioned ideological progressivism.

Obama, I think, knows this, and is doing something of a dance – one that doesn’t seek to challenge or change the Orwellian shenanigans, but to manipulate them for his own – and likely progressive – ends. It could be really brilliant (as long as what he’s doing isn’t the opposite – an attempt to sell policies crafted by conservatives with a marketing team made up of progressives – I don’t think it is, but we can’t be totally sure just yet).

One of Sirota’s commenters is far less sure than Sirota himself. The commenter thinks it likely that our president-elect picked conservatives because he prefers them:

Why would conservative free-market ideologues sign on to be used as vessels for Obama’s progressive economic dictums? This seems an unsubstantiated speculative stretch. Plus, it would make Obama an uber-wonk who maps out all levels of governmental policy by himself and delivers them to his appointed stooges who give it a “pragmatic” cover. (…..)

The fact is, Obama appointed these people because he respects them and agrees with their ideas. He spent ten years at Chicago University — the ground-zero of Milton Friedman ‘Chicago School’ hyper free-market disaster capitalism. Even if he’s on the left end of that spectrum, its pretty far-right.

McCaskill, no lefty herself, describes Obama as strong enough to know his own mind, even when he works with conservatives. Maybe, but I don’t necessarily trust her evaluation.

Still, we hope she’s right. Of course. And Obama has proposed a $700 billion works project to create jobs by improving infrastructure and building a green energy grid. That hardly sounds like Milton Friedman.

At any rate, here’s what we can know: that all three of the presidents Kuttner describes as bringing about transformational change did so under considerable pressure from progressive activists: Lincoln from abolitionists, Roosevelt from labor unions, and LBJ from civil rights groups.

We can’t get inside Obama’s mind. But we can promise ourselves that we’ll do our part to push the national conversation to the left.