So it appears all but certain more troops will be sent to Afghanistan.  President Obama will follow the advice of General McCrystal almost blindly.

Why?  Is he afraid to fail in Afghanistan?  Or is he afraid to stand up to a four-star general?  The problem is that Afghanistan is more complex than some risky, unknown counterinsurgency strategy.  What's needed is better use of what we have already there and even bringing some troops home.

An economic development plan for Afghanistan is the best way to weaken the Taliban.  The Afghan people need an ecenomic alternative; military solutions alone aren't the answer.  In fact, nations who engage in lot of wars decline--they lose power, not gain it.

So Obama is unveiling his health care bill--five months too late.  Me thinks he just got frustrated with the sausage making process.  It will have a trigger for the public option.

Here's my take:

1.  I think Obama has figured out his biggest mistake--Don't let an unpopular Congress with unpopular leaders draft your agenda.  That's why the stimulus was so bad.

2.  I think a bill will pass by Easter next year, not this year.
We may need the junior senator from Massachusetts.

3.  The trigger is less than desirable. (w/poll)

It's finally out.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/P PP_Release_VA_6074983.pdf

Deeds is now up 40-26-24, with Brian Moran in third place.  So the WaPo endorsement did it.  Not the only reason but it helped.
At least it won't be McAuliffe.

So why did Jerome's guy Brian Moran failed to catch on?  He never took off outside of Northern Virginia.  Also I think he never gave a compelling reason why he should be the nominee.  Jerome may disagree, but I never saw it.  He was the "non-McAuliffe" candidate, but that was it.  Another issue that may have tripped up Moran was Gitmo.  He seemed on the defensive.  All those local endoresements didn't help either.

With Deeds, while the WaPo endorsement legitimized his candidacy in NoVa, benefitted by being from "real Virginia."  Deeds had the highest favorables of the three candidates, and leads in all regions except the 757 area code.  And PPP found 50% of the likely primary electorate are moderates.  But most importantly, Deeds was considered the "outsider" in this race, even though he has been in the legislature and ran for attorney general in 2005.

McAuliffe's decline was certainly accelerated by his fibbing on how many jobs he created.  He had real credibility and ethical issues, in addition to the "carpetbagger" issue, even though he lived in the state for 20 years.  Support from Bill Clinton and the national Democratic establishment hasn't helped.

A SUSA poll has come out on the Virginia governor's race:

http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S= 10265296&nav=S6aK

Of 409 likely Democratic primary voters, it's 38% for McAuliffe, and 22% each for Brian Moran and Creigh Deeds.  But McDonnell leads all three Dems in a sample of 1396 RVs, with McDonnell leading McAuliffe 46%-39%.  Deeds runs only behind by 5, 44-39.  Moran does the worst against McDonnell, trailing 46-34.

Something has shifted in the primary race, and it's going to be uphill in November no matter who wins the primary.  Is McAuliffe that bad a candidate?  I do think Bill Clinton's campaigning for McAuliffe has given him a boost.

So, can Brian Moran turn it around?

The Republicans are at it again:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/ 04/will-the-republicans-filibuster-dawn- johnsen.php

President Obama's first judiclal pick was supposed to be a safe choice.  His choice for the Office of Legal Counsel is strongly pro-choice and anti-torture.  So you'd expect some difficulty with Dawn Johnson, but to filibuster over second-tier appointments is getting ridiculous.  Since the two appointees in question are in-laws, these issues are holding up David Hamilton also.

Part of the problem is Harry Reid.  He just can't step up to the plate.  Isn't he the Majority Leader?  Start actling like one.

I think the President ought to exercise the power to make recess appointments--Bush did this with John Bolton and various judicial appointments.  Otherwise he's likely to get zero appointees on the federal bench, let alone a Supreme Court nomination confirmed.  Turnabout is fair play.  This is not the time for "post-partisanship."

So Arnold Schwarzenegger was for stimulus money before he was against it:  (h/t CA Majority Report)

"At a hearing of the Assembly Insurance Committee Wednesday, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's representative, Labor and Workforce Development Agency Undersecretary Steffanie Watkins, refused to support AB 3x 23, legislation that makes California eligible for $839 million in one-time federal unemployment insurance funds available at part of the President's economic stimulus package."

But the committee passed the bill on an 8-2 vote, so at least there's a possibility of a veto override, though I'm not counting on that after the budget battle.  There's this fear of higher unemployment taxes once the stimulus money runs out.  But won't unemployment taxes go up anyway?  Unemployment taxes are partly based on an "experience" factor which takes into account a company's prior terminations and layoffs.  

A stimulus agreement was reached.  We should be so impressed.  Far from a perfect package, it could still face resistance from the left in the House.  Too much was cut, but the original bill was terrible also.  So it went from bad to awful, but I think we have to look at the stimulus a bit differently now.  The fact remains that it still has more spending than tax cuts.  That in itself is a step forward.  And we have to keep in mind that Obama did promise a tax cut in the campaign.  And unlike a lot of here in our blue world, I think the President didn't emphasize the tax cut portion of the package enough when it first rolled out.

So how did some of the key participants grade out?  Here's my view:

President Obama:  C+.  Was distracted by Cabinet miscues, and he lost control of both the process and the debate.  He didn't get out there selling the stimulus from day one.  Also, there was no plan to counter GOP talking points on the TV talk shows.  He allowed the House bill to be filled with some fluff which was easy fodder for the Republicans.  Granted some of the proposals were worthy, but should have been saved for the budget.  The contraceptives funding was a great idea, but provided the GOP with an easy target.  After the Daschle fiasco, he found his voice, and gave rousing sppeched to the Dept. of Energy and to the House Democrats.  And's he's going out on the road to conduct town halls in Indiana and Florida.  Did his rhetoric save the day?  Perhaps.

With GOP opposition to the stimulus hardening in the Senate, there's a very good chance of a filibuster.  It appears that we are three or four votes short of 60 on the stimulus package.

Unlike some in the progressive blogosphere, I do think think the package can be improved a lot.  The House version has a lot of stuff that is easily ridiculed and attacked by Republicans, and gives government spending more of a negative image than it already has.  I favor a reworking that includes more infrastructure spending and less of the extraneous stuff like new cars for the federal government.  And there should be a requirement that any bailout money has to to spent here in the US.

With Ben Nelson (NE) a likely no vote, there are other wavering Democrats--Kent Conrad, possibly Jon Tester, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu, and there's only one Republican in support--Olympia Snowe.  Are there Senators who would vote for cloture but against the stimulus?