Today's the day in Georgia. Turnout will be key, so can you spare a few minutes for some phone calls? TIME looks at why this race is so important and 538 reports from on the ground in Georgia.
Also, reaction continues to Obama's national security team. When will the next round leak? I'm chomping at the bit for more!
And, George W. Bush is spending all of his time trying to convince the media of his legacy, while behind the scenes he is trying to push through rules before Obama takes office. The latest will make it more difficult for women to gain access to LEGAL abortion services and contraception.
Laura Packard blogs at HuffPo on her experience volunteering and riding along with Jim Martin in Georgia:
If the measure of a person can best be taken in the quiet moments versus on stage, it's too bad this whole state doesn't get to ride on the bus. Because Jim Martin is unfailingly polite and thoughtful, even behind the scenes.
You can still help GOTV in Georgia from wherever you are by phone-banking today. Need a little extra motivation? Read this:
"We need you to send Saxby back to the United States Senate to work for all of us," Palin said.
Chambliss has been driving home his core message. Palin backed him up.
"Georgians have an opportunity to determine whether or not we will have 41 Republican senators to shake bad legislation, or give the Obama administration a blank check," Chambliss said.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution reiterates their support for Martin (again) and urges Georgians to get to the polls.
::::::
TIME looks at what's at stake in the Georgia run-off:
And that's why the Martin-Chambliss race actually is a big deal: Chambliss is a textbook Bush-Cheney Republican — and every vote counts. Sixty seats would be better for the Democrats than 59, which would be better for the Democrats than 58. Six years is also a long time. In fact, Georgia is still an extremely conservative state, so if Chambliss can win at a time when the Republican Party is at its lowest ebb, he can probably hold his seat as long as he wants — which would be good news for Bush-style Republicans and bad news for Obama-style Democrats, no matter who is in power.
On the other hand, a Martin surprise in this deep-red state would be a crowning embarrassment for the GOP. It would rival Obama's own victory as a repudiation of the Bush agenda of tax cuts for the rich, pork for the well-connected, belt-tightening for the working poor, drill-baby-drill, strict-construction judges and military adventurism — not to mention the political cynicism that made Chambliss notorious after his ads in 2002 comparing his opponent, triple-amputee Max Cleland, to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Who would love a crowning embarrassment for the GOP? I would! I would! We should all give thanks to the awesome volunteers down in Georgia right now. Sean Quinn from 538 reports from Georgia on the ground game.
::::::
What is the morning reaction to Obama's national security team? The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board calls it a "well-tested" team:
It's an acid test of his vision that a broad consensus will emerge from table-pounding discussion that he then can mold into his own policy. With his choices, he definitely won't get an echo chamber supplied by smiling loyalists. "I'm a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions," he said, in case anyone missed the strong theme.
The Houston Chronicle echoes that opinion, calling the picks "high-powered" and "long on experience."
::::::
Bob Herbert expresses his doubts in the New York Times:
President-elect Obama campaigned on the mantra of change. For years the federal government catered increasingly to the interests of the wealthy and the powerful. This reached a destructive crescendo when the ideologues and incompetents of the Bush administration came to power.
That is what needs to change.
Will this new Obama team, as brilliant as it appears to be, begin addressing on day one the interests of those who are not rich and who have not had the ear of those in power?
::::::
The Niagara Gazette (NY) editorial board calls the Clinton choice "interesting" - and I don't think they mean it in a good way.
::::::
Mike Madden asks what's in this for Clinton?:
What's in it for Clinton might seem a little less obvious. After all, she won 18 million votes in the Democratic primary campaign; you'd think that would give her a pretty good head start on building a national constituency as a power player in the Senate. But you'd probably be wrong, and that, former Clinton advisors say, is likely why she decided, in the end, to sign up with Team Obama. Ask John Kerry (or, for that matter, John McCain) how much clout losing presidential candidates bring home with them once it's all over. It turns out 18 million votes don't go that far on Capitol Hill.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post argues Clinton's effectiveness as Secretary of State will depend on "Obama's willingness to admit her to his inner circle" as well as her ability to speak for his policies.
::::::
Fred Kaplan argues that the most important - and telling - national security pick is not Hillary Clinton, but James Jones:
Everything that President-elect Barack Obama has said and done these past few weeks indicates that this is going to be an administration run from the White House. His selection of Jones as national-security adviser signals that this will very much be the case in foreign and military policy.
Florida Today calls Jones "one of the best military minds of his generation," while Bradford Plumer at TNR wonders what impact Jones (who sits on the board of Chevron) will have on Obama's energy policy.
::::::
The Washington Post reports that Gate's top deputies will likely not be joining him in the new administration:
The anticipated turnover of many key positions suggests that although Gates will help provide some continuity, the status quo will not necessarily endure at the Pentagon.
"Continuity is likely to come in the form of Gates and military commanders leading the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, while a new deputy and team of undersecretaries would manage the Pentagon and focus on longer-range issues such as the budget . . . missile defense, relations with allies and preparation for the next crisis," said Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Some of the positions likely to be replaced include the deputy defense secretary and the four undersecretaries of defense, and high turnover is also expected among the assistant secretaries.
::::::
The Nation is still applying the Iraq criteria to all of Obama's nominees and John Nichols argues that evidence of Susan Rice's "wrong-thinking" is summed up in this quote:
"I think he [Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons and is hiding them," said Rice, a former Clinton administration State Department aide, "and I don't think many informed people doubted that."
My question is this. Susan Rice was Obama's primary national security advisor during the campaign. Why did no one have this problem then? To distill her entire career down to one quote is just wrong, in my opinion. Today's Los Angeles Times editorial argues:
It's hard to imagine anyone who would represent a clearer break with the Bush administration's foreign policy strategies than Rice.
::::::
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa rules out the possibility of joining Obama's administration:
Villaraigosa said he had a "conversation" with Obama in mid-November about joining the new Democratic administration, but told the incoming president that he would stay in Los Angeles to focus on his reelection campaign and ongoing efforts to address the city's financial troubles and other pressing issues. "I'm honored and flattered to have been considered for an appointment in the Obama administration," Villaraigosa told The Times on Monday. "I made it clear I love what I do. And I feel that at this moment in my life, this is the job in which I can best serve my city and country."
The Washington Post had floated Villaraigosa as a potential for Labor or Housing and Urban Development.
::::::
Bush has GOT to go NOW. Every morning I read about some new nefarious scheme that the Bush administration is trying to push through before Obama takes office:
The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.
This man has done so much harm to this country already, and I fear it will only get worse before he leaves office. So what happens when doctors or pharmacists can deny women LEGAL medical procedures or contraception?
In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused a prescription for emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old woman with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.
::::::
What's on your mind this morning?