I am as against torture, and for the rule of law, as anyone.  I am extremely supportive of the president's decision to release the horrifying memos detailing how the last administration crafted a policy of illegal torture.  I believe, on the merits alone, that prosecutions are warranted.

However, I think an important piece is missing from the general back-and-forth of this ongoing debate. 

I don't believe the American people voted for torture prosecutions in November.  I don't think Obama was given a mandate by the voters to prosecute Bush administration officials.  I do believe he was given a mandate to end the torture regime—which he has done. 

I also believe, more importantly, that he was given a mandate to focus on other things besides torture: namely, healthcare, global warming, ending the Iraq War, and rescuing the economy.  If you asked the average voter how they rank the issues of the day as to their concerns, I think you would see "torture prosecutions" near the bottom of the list.

I say all of that because so many of the civil libertarian pundits over the last couple of weeks have behaved as though there is nothing more important for Obama to do as president than prosecute torturers.  More important than universal health care.  More important than the two wars we are currently fighting.  More important than combating global warming.  More important than saving our banking system.  And I think that is a woefully naive attitude to take.

I understand that a president can and should be able to juggle more than one problem at a time.  But not all problems are equal, as anyone honestly facing the political realities of torture prosecutions should understand. 

Already, we are seeing Obama spending precious political capital on this issue.  And he should spend some of it on this issue.  But how much should he spend on an issue that most Americans don't consider extraordinarily pressing, compared to the economic suffering they are currently living through?  Compared to their lack of jobs, their lack of health care, their lack of retirement savings, their lack of quality education, their crushing levels of personal debt?

I also think there has been a lot of naivete about how divisive and politically draining prosecutions of the last administration would be.  On Friday, political savant Paul Krugman stated the following:

For example, would investigating the crimes of the Bush era really divert time and energy needed elsewhere?  Let’s be concrete: whose time and energy are we talking about?

Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to rescue the economy.  Peter Orszag, the budget director, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to reform health care. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to limit climate change.  Even the president needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, be involved.  All he would have to do is let the Justice Department do its job — which he’s supposed to do in any case — and not get in the way of any Congressional investigations.

Anyone who has a shred of political instinct knows that to be complete nonsense.  But that's not surprising at all coming from the Professor.

Does Krugman actually think that Tim Geithner is really in charge of "rescuing the economy"?  That Peter Orszag will be the one to "reform health care"?  That Steven Chu will personally "limit climate change".  Those are big, political initiatives, ordered up by the president, and then pushed through by the salesperson-in-chief who spends his time and energy convincing a public and a wayward Congress that they should be implemented.  Yes, the "salesperson-in-chief" is also the president.

The actors Krugman listed—Geithner, Orszag, and Chu—are not politicians.  They are bureaucrats tasked with implementing legislative achievements that the president has developed a sufficient amount of political will behind.  If those big initiatives do not have sufficient political will behind them, they do not become legislation, they do not get passed, and they do not get implemented.

And how does Obama generate political will?  By advocating popular policies, by educating the public, and by cajoling Congress.  Oh, and also by avoiding gigantic land mines like the prosecution of the political opposition. 

I also love Krugman's bald assertion that "Even the president needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, be involved."  Right, Paul.  I am sure that it won't be remotely distracting for Obama when Dick Cheney is brought up on war crimes.

Today's Washington Post poll had much good news for Obama (a 69% job approval rating!).  A stark exception to that good news were his numbers regarding the torture debate:

Overall, the public is about evenly divided on the questions of whether torture is justifiable in terrorism cases and whether there should be official inquiries into any past illegality involving the treatment of terrorism suspects.  About half of all Americans, and 52 percent of independents, said there are circumstances in which the United States should consider employing torture against such suspects.

Barely more than half of all poll respondents back Obama's April 16 decision to release the memos specifying how and when to employ specific interrogation techniques.  A third "strongly oppose" that decision, about as many as are solidly behind it.  Three-quarters of Democrats said they approve of the action, while 74 percent of Republicans are opposed; independents split 50 to 46 percent in favor of the decision.

That's half of all respondents supporting torture.  That's half of all respondents opposed to the release of the torture memos.  Whatever else you want to say about this debate, you certainly can't say there is a consensus in American life regarding the use of torture.  While you and I and Obama might oppose it, you and I can rant and rave all day about how evil it is, and how someone must be punished.  Obama doesn't have that luxury.  Obama has to remain popular enough to get the many, many other necessary initiatives passed that the majority of voters expected of him back in November.  If that means he doesn't prosecute some Bush-era war criminals, I believe that's a loss he'll probably end up taking.  I would tend to agree with him.

The firestorm that would erupt over seeing a prior administration prosecuted as war criminals could be more explosive than Watergate.  I think if people are going to be intellectually honest about their advocacy for these prosecutions, they have to admit that they will likely come with a large political cost for the president.  And they have to ask themselves and their fellow Democrats if they would rather trade major legislation like univeral health care for torture prosecutions.

Democratic presidencies like this one very rarely come along.  This one has already ended the torture regime.  Yet so many are conflating Obama's hesitancy over prosecution with the actual torture regime under Bush.  That's wrongheaded, and even worse: morally vain.

Maybe the president's decision not to hang him high wasn't such a bad move after all:

With Obama’s economic stimulus plan on life support in the Senate last week, Lieberman (I-Conn.) joined a group led by wavering moderate Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) and helped bring Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) on board to save the bill, which passed Tuesday with just enough votes in the Senate.

By instead keeping him in the Democratic Caucus with just a slap on the wrist, Lieberman has proved to be a loyal vote, supporting all of Obama’s Cabinet nominees, voting for passage on the first two major bills Obama has signed into law and working as an ally on the stimulus bill.  Indeed, Lieberman has broken from his party on just seven of the first 61 votes of the 111th Congress, as the opening weeks of 2009 have been dominated by domestic issues where Lieberman’s views are in line with many Democrats, unlike his hawkish positions on foreign policy.

For now, this appears to be yet another moment where what appears to have once been a tactical mistake by Obama turns out to be a strategic masterstroke.  As usual, the president is playing the long game, an activity the Beltway cannot understand. 

The real test for Lieberman, however, will be on the war-funding votes to come.  One would hope polls this like this would encourage him to reconsider those hawkish positions.

The new poll tests Lieberman as an independent against Democratic Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. The numbers: Blumenthal 58%, Lieberman 30%. Yikes.

Lieberman's active campaigning against the Democratic Party last year hasn't won him too many friends back home. Democrats go for Blumenthal by 83%-9%, and independents are for Blumenthal 55%-29%. Lieberman is the de facto Republican nominee in this match, and with GOP voters he scores 67%-23% over Blumenthal.

Lieberman's job approval is also at only 45%, with 48% disapproving. Among Democrats that's a 21%-70% rating, Republicans 75%-20%, while independents give him a narrow approval of 48%-46%.

It's less than four years away, but with numbers like those, I seriously wonder if Joe will even bother to run for re-election again.
 

“What we are dealing with today is the greatest power grab by the federal government since the war of northern aggression,” Stevenson said, R-Webb City, referring what Southern states called the North’s attempt to end slavery in the 1860s.

The remark caused a sudden gasp heard throughout the House’s chamber.

Stevenson later apologized on the floor for any “offense” his comments caused. He was urged to do so by African-American Rep. Don Calloway (D), who pointed out that the Civil War helped abolish slavery and it was “inappropriate to refer to that war as the war of northern aggression.”

In Alaska, more people voted for George W. Bush in 2004 than for Sarah Palin on Tuesday despite an identical 61-36 margin of victory.  Yes. Only four years ago 54,304 Alaskans got off their sofas and voted for Bush, but decided to sit home and not vote for Palin in 2008.  In turn, I have to ignore the 30,520 Alaskans who felt progressive enough in 2004 to vote for John Kerry, but weren’t inspired to vote for Barack Obama.  I would have to glance past the 1,700% increase in the Democratic caucus in February, the 20,991 newly registered voters, and the three largest political rallies in Alaska’s history.  I would also have to forget the people I stood in a long line with to early vote.  It would be helpful not to know every other presidential election since Alaska began keeping records has had a larger turn out than the one we just had with our own Governor on the ticket.  Try not to remember 12.4% more Alaskans showed up for the August primary as compared to four years ago, before the Palin nomination. Don’t think about the Lower 49’s record voter turn out this year either.  Try to delete the memory file, though difficult, that 80% of us approved of Sarah Palin just two months ago.

Four years ago, 313,592 out of 474,740 registered voters in Alaska participated in the election-a 66% turnout.  Taking into account 49,000 outstanding ballots, on Tuesday 272,633 out of 495,731 registered Alaskans showed up at the polls; a turnout of 54.9%.  That’s a decrease of more than 11% in voter turnout even though passions ran high for and against Barack Obama, as well as for and against Sarah Palin!  This year, early voters set a new record.  As of last Thursday, with 4 days left to vote early, 15,000 Alaskans showed up-shattering the old record set in 2004 by 28%! Consider the most popular governor in history-and now the most polarizing-was on the Republican ticket.  Consider the historic nature of this race; the first African American presidential candidate EVER!  The second woman to ever make a presidential ticket; and she’s one of our own.  Despite that, we’re supposed to believe that overall participation DECREASED by 11%.  Not only that, but this historic election both nationally and for Alaska HAD THE LOWEST ALASKA TURNOUT FOR A PRESIDENTIAL RACE EVER!!!  That makes sense.  REALLY???  Something stinks.

11:10pm
I've just experienced one of the single greatest moments of my life.  Barack Obama officially is projected the next President Of The United States.  There is nothing else to add...right now.

10:14pm
The Democrats have pulled off a Congressional shutout: the last Republican House Representative from New England—Chris Shays—has been taken out.

9:24pm
Never mind that, because NBC just called OHIO FOR OBAMA!!!!!

9:20pm
Mitch McConnell keeps his Senate seat in my home state of Kentucky, CNN projects.  That just sucks.  Democrats' chances of getting to 60 just became almost impossible.  And Kentucky is stuck with Mitch McConnell.

9:19pm
Obama is closing hard in Virginia, now only 2 points behind: 51-49%.

8:41pm
Ace reporter Marc Ambinder has Obama up by 3% in Indiana:

With 30% of the vote in, Obama's up three.

The Obama folks are watching Posey County... which is the last big population center that's not reporting results yet. (Evansville...)

Other Indiana counties: Howard went to Bush by 11,000 in 2004... Obama's losing by just three thousand votes now (and turnout is twice what it is.)

8:38pm
Georgia gets called for McCain.  Hopefully, it tightens up enough to get a shot at knocking off Sen. Chambliss.

8:32pm
Bye-bye, Liddy Dole...

8:23pm
ABC is also calling Pennsylvania for Obama.

8:16pm
Democrat Jeanne Shaheen wins her U.S. Senate seat race in New Hampshire!

8:13pm
Same with New Hampshire.

8:01pm
PENNSYLVANIA!!!!!  MSNBC calls it for Obama.  But CNN and FOX are holding off.

7:48pm

Nate Silver offers us these stats as to how Obama is outperforming the counties we have in already from Indiana:

Steuben: Kerry 34%, Obama 42%
DeKalb: Kerry 31%, Obama 38%
Knox: Kerry 36%, Obama 54%
Marshall: Kerry 31%, Obama 50%

7:38pm
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo points out that Obama is dominating the greatest bellwether county in the nation:

Democrats are cheered by early numbers showing that Obama holds a healthy lead in Vigo County, a place that one Dem described to us as "the most reliable bellwether county in the country."

"Vigo has only been wrong on president twice since 1892," this Dem enthuses.

A story in the Indy Star concurs, adding that of the most reliable bellwhether counties in the country, Vego "has voted closest to the national margin."

Right now, in Vigo County, Obama is up 57%-42%, with 80% reporting.

While TIVO-ing "Meet The Press" for tomorrow morning, since—as usual—I'll probably sleep through it, I saw this caption displayed:

Sen. John McCain (R. Ariz) discusses his presidential campaign in an interview in Waterloo, Iowa.

Right.

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama replied.  "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too . . . When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

This mild remark has gotten some of the leading lights of conservative media all in a tizzy.  The Murdoch-owned New York Post weighed in, claiming that the wealthy already pay too much in taxes:

Remember, Obama's tax hikes target folks who already bear the brunt of the burden: The top 20 percent of earners already pay 69 percent of all federal taxes - and 88 percent of income taxes.

(Contrast that with John McCain's call yesterday for real tax cuts - halving the capital-gains levy, scrapping taxes on unemployment benefits altogether - designed to prime the economic pump.)

Isn't it odd that the only taxes the Post thinks are "real tax cuts" are those provided for non-labor earnings like capital gains on investments, and unemployment benefits?  I'm all for scrapping taxes on unemployment benefits—I've always thought they were punitive—but capital gains?  CAPITAL GAINS?  So working folk don't deserve tax cuts, but the wealthy and unemployed do?

Meanwhile, Tom Bevan of the right-leaning Real Clear Politics thinks this "gaffe" provides an opening for McCain in tonight's debate:

With the financial crisis dominating so much of the discussion, McCain has less freedom to make the traditional liberal vs. conservative critique on other issues like abortion or gun rights without appearing to go off topic.  But Obama handed McCain a golden opportunity this week by being caught on tape telling a plumber in Ohio that his economic plan seeks to "spread the wealth around."  That phrase that neatly captures for McCain the attack that Obama is a liberal income redistributionist who wants to take from the haves and give to the have nots.

It's always fascinating to watch ideologues fall so in love with their positions, they can't see how anyone else wouldn't either.  Of course Republican activist Tom Bevan thinks McCain making some sort of "anti-class warfare", supply-side argument would be brilliant tonight.  Doesn't everyone hate the idea of some of the most concentrated wealth in the world being lightly redistributed to unemployed Americans, lower-income Americans, and children, through social services, retirement benefits, educational needs, and infrastructural projects?  Who the hell wants all that?

I sure think it would be great if McCain attacked Obama tonight for wanting to reverse decades of the widest income inequality our nation has ever known.  In the midst of the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression, brought on by a Wall Street greed that would make Gordon Gekko blush, on a day when the stock market dropped yet another 733 points, I can think of nothing better than for McCain to shout at Obama "quit picking on the fat cats"!

There are still a handful of honorable people left in the GOP, like John Weaver, who think whipping up a mob of jingoists and racists is simply beyond the pale:

John Weaver, McCain’s former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.

“People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Sen. Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Sen. McCain,” Weaver said.  “And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive.” 

“Sen. Obama is a classic liberal with an outdated economic agenda.  We should take that agenda on in a robust manner.  As a party we should not and must not stand by as the small amount of haters in our society question whether he is as American as the rest of us.  Shame on them and shame on us if we allow this to take hold.”

Notice the "former".