Stephanie Miller, host of her independently produced and very funny morning talk show, and daughter of Barry Goldwater's 1964 running mate, spoke to C-SPAN in early January; I caught a clip of it at Crooks & Liars yesterday

Well I think it speaks to a lot of Barack Obama has been speaking to and that is an inclusiveness. ... I think it's interesting Barack Obama personally got elected on the power of we. He never said I. You know he quoted that we're the ones we've been waiting for, um, yes we can, and I think that's what people have been so thirsty for. To me that's what it means to be a liberal.

There are about 2 million defintions of liberalism available to us, and most have to do with the Enlightenment (a good place to start, actually), government, markets, individual liberty, etc. Very rarely is liberalism discussed as "inclusivity." But that is what a liberal government does: include all people in the benefits, and responsibilities, of political and social life.

The interviewer asked Stephanie if she's a liberal or progressive, noting that the two terms seem to be either interchangeable or that many use the latter out of fear of being called the former. She said she's glad to be a liberal, but her understanding of what liberalism accomplishes is, in fact very progressive. As I have written repeatedly, liberalism is about the kinds of political programs and policies we promote; progressivism is how we do the politics. A liberal public service will be encouraged and supported by government, will be open to all who need or would benefit from it and would derive at least partial funding from those able to pay. To make that policy possible requires a progressive movement of support; in other words, ordinary citizens, active in the grassroots, would be a major source of the impetus for that policy. Liberal policy with progressive politics.

(And I owe the distinction to a Daily Kos blogger commenting on Krugman.)

The entire interview is linked at C&L; Miller's show can be heard online, 6am - 9am, Mon-Fri, on KPTK. I miss being to listen to it.

Rep Earl Blumenaneur (D-Pedal Power) had this to say about bikes in HuffPost recently (I wasn't paying close enough attention when it first came out on the 6th):

Investment in bike paths will not only improve our economy, and take our country in the right direction for the future; it is exactly the kind of investment the American people want.

Moreover, bicycle and pedestrian paths are precisely the kind of infrastructure projects our country needs. These projects tend to the most "shovel-ready" and are more labor-intensive than other projects — therefore putting more people to work per dollar spent.

We might have understood these attacks a decade ago, but today they ignore the explosion of bicycling in this country in recent years that has been nothing short of phenomenal.

This is the kind of uber-partisan attack from the right that underscores their overarching goal in the stimulus debate: stopping the Dems, and Pres Obama, from winning. Just as they did when they were in power (and laying the groundwork for engorging the federal government while simultaneously destroying the economy), they show no intention of trying to make things better for the majority of Americans but simply to score ideological points and destroy any plans of the Dems. Nevermind the American people back the Democrats and the President; nevermind that the Rs failed when in leadership; nevermind the world is falling to pieces.

Better to destroy their enemies even if they take the nation down with them.

Earl's whole piece is worth a read. Understand why bike paths make such good economic sense.

The NY Times:

Senate Democrats reached an agreement with Republican moderates on Friday to pare a huge economic recovery measure, clearing the way for approval of a package that President Obama said was urgently needed in light of mounting job losses.

...

The fine print was not immediately available, and the numbers were shifting. But in essence, the Democratic leadership and two centrist Republicans announced they had struck a deal on about $110 billion in cuts to the roughly $900 billion legislation — a deal expected to provide at least the 60 votes needed to send the bill out of the Senate and into negotiations with the House, which has passed its own version.

And whatever disappointment I initially felt at the cuts (not even knowing what they were, just knowing the amount was too small) was mediated somewhat by this:

Republicans were clearly irritated at the outcome and faulted those involved in working out the bargain. “When you say this was the best we could do, I disagree with you,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on the floor. “This not remotely close to what we could have done if we had sat down in a true bipartisan fashion and found a better way.”

Lindsey Graham is pissed? That's definitely good news.

"Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the essential," Obama said earlier this week, aware, as I'm sure he has since before he took ofice, that the stimuluar package would fall short of his expectations — and far short of those hungry to see the nation turn immediately from the policies of the past eight years (and more). What the Senate is going to pass is indeed far short of perfect; many will argue it does not even achieve the essential threshold. This is true only if the goal is to fix the economy in one single act. That was never going to happen.

Had the Congress been able to pass even the most ambitious recovery package, it would not have been enough. Even Paul Krugman's call for a $2 trillion effort would have been insufficient, for the very simple and very real reason that the world is going to change, circumstances will shift, and what we do today will not be the right thing for tomorrow. In this light, a less ambitious program that provides a serious and significant jumpstart to the economy may turn out to be the best one to put forward.

From Talking Points Memo:

Obama's mix of steel and patience are two of his key virtues.

But I have been surprised that he has not chosen yet to play more to, and get out among, his real constituency — particularly on this bill — the people.

Josh Marshall's comments are in response to a reader who was puzzled why Obama wasn't finding ways to get "the people" involved in his fight for the stimular package. Obviously neither of them signed up to receive email at barackobama.com during the campaign; perhaps they both cancelled once the election was over. If so, that was a big mistake. Those of us who kept the accounts open — and I'm guessing that number is in the millions — know that Obama has been communicating to and organizing "the people" not merely to support the stimulus package but to be there throughout his first term.

David Ploufe and "Organizing for America" continue to send the word: Support the President. They have even organized a weekend of houseparties for the package, and I'm not sure this has ever happened before: The mechanism of a presidential campaign being turned directly into a policy support campaign. But that's Obama and his team have done. So while the Senate dicks around and the GOP tries to convince Fox News how bad the package is, several hundred thousand citizens will meet in each other's homes and get themselves fired-up in a way they've never done before.

As another writer (I gotta start tracking these things better) wrote, Obama's primary campaign strategy was built on the slow-but-steady principle. He has a lot less time for the stimulus package than he did to plan for Iowa, but, overall, the groundwork being laid with supporters is going to pay off big. The stimulus package will pass; it will fall short of optimal, but that can be fixed later this year. Where "Organizing for America" and similar efforts will pay off most importantly will be health care. When those changes are introduced, Congress better be prepared to work cooperatively with the President, rather than the entrenched interests. "The people" will really be ready by then.

Ok, it was Super Bowl Sunday, and it was a party, and there was lots of beer. And I had my share of beer. By the time the CareerBuilder.com ad came on, I was a bit buzzed. Enough that watching this ad was a surreal vacation from reality for a full minute. I mean, given the premise of the ad — you gotta know when it's time to cut & run — I think taking off for a minute, even if just to a weird place in my own head, is just exactly what the doctor ordered.

Of course, by the next day I could not remember the ad, just that there was an ad that was so frikkin cool to watch. Finally found what it was, accidentally (as accidental as 20 minutes watching random YouTube shit can be). It was CareerBuilder and while it's no longer that 1-minute getaway, it's still a terrific ad. I still vote it the top ad of the Super Bowl.

And I still say the Steelers were once again given a Super Bowl title. Someday they need to win one fairly.

There are three big reasons President Obama should nominate Howard Dean to fill the position of Secretary of HHS, and those reasons all reflect on why we can celebrate, albeit respectfully, Tom Daschle's downfall.

First, of course, is that Howard Dean is Dr Howard Dean. He has spent much of his life as a general practioner, including most of the time he served as Vermont's governor. Not only did he remain in that non-lucrative field, he did so in a small city where he was assured of not becoming rich. For a kid who grew up in New York City and had the opportunity to seek wealth on Wall Street, the decision to dedicate his career to helping ordinary people with basic health care and education demonstrates a quality of character the Daschle fiasco was lacking. Tom Daschle is probably a good person, but his post-Senate career can be summarized in part by the sad phrase, "take the money and run" (or drive, in his case).

Dr Dean? Has remained in public service until recently. I expect he'll make a few quid speaking and such, but I also believe he'll continue to fight for the political change he has worked so passionately for since 2002, when he began his quest for the White House — and changed the nation forever.

Bushisms, one of the great works of genius to emerge from this dark period of world history. Here are the top 25 as selected by the man who came up with them in the first place, Slate's Jacob Weisberg.

1. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
   Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
2. "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family.”
   Greater Nashua, N.H., Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 27, 2000
3. "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”
   Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
4. "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country.”
   Poplar Bluff, Mo., Sept. 6, 2004
5. "Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican.”
   declining to answer reporters' questions at the Summit of the Americas, Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001

Mayor Sam Adams and the Portland City Council are not going to wait for Congress to decide whether or not to send federal stimulus money to Oregon. They have moved forward with planned transportation spending, a half-billion in planned construction — and borrowing — that will now begin this year rather than down the road:

The Portland City Council will create 5,000 new construction jobs this year by speeding up the schedule on $500 million worth of city housing, sewer, water, park and road projects.

The city's "first ever" economic stimulus package, Mayor Sam Adams said Tuesday, is an aggressive strategy to inject new money into the local economy. Job creation means paycheck creation, and the council hopes the money the city spends will flow through workers to the city's small businesses, which make up 85 percent of jobs inside city limits.

In addition to construction spending, Adams said his administration will work to attract new companies and their family-wage jobs to Portland, push locally made goods into foreign markets and reduce home foreclosures while getting more qualified homebuyers into the market. And he said the city plans to expand loan assistance programs to small businesses.

The article in the Oregonian notes that this work was going to happen anyway, and would be funded by borrowing: "Borrowing is the normal way that cities build such projects." The downside? Cuts of up to 5% in the City's 2009-10 budget. However, if the program is successful in generating local spending and taxing, and if stimulus develops additional, permanent economic development, the City may be able to reverse those cuts. This is what the Council is counting on, just as the Congress and President-elect are moving forward on a national stimulus package.

Perhaps the best part is that Adams and the Council are not sitting still and hoping for a federal rescue. Doing nothing out of fear that accelerated borrowing is risky is the other option. We know how that works: Nothing happens. Let's move forward boldly. It worked to end the Great Depression.