At Daily Kos, Welshman provides strong evidence that he misunderstands the only effective role the Netroots can play to promote progressivism. He bemoans the mean attacks on Speaker Nancy Pelosi, arguing, more or less, that she is doing the best she can.

MORE on why Welshman is wrong on the other side.

Jeffrey Toobin reviews Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' autobiography , My Grandfather's Son, in the New Yorker this week.

Like most judicial conservatives, Thomas criticizes liberal Justices for using the Constitution to promote their “policy preferences.” But, as Thomas’s book clearly demonstrates, he has sought to enshrine in the Constitution his own policy preferences—the ones he learned from his grandfather.

This is especially true on the question of race.

It's a long review and Toobin has put a great deal of thought into it making it a good read.

Jay Leno, Julia Dreyfuss, Ellen DeGeneres, Tina Fey and other big stars are supporting the striking Hollywood writers.

I like the chant the strikers are using:

"Hey, hey, pencils down.
Hollywood's a union town."

Hillary and Barack Obama, who have received $2 million in contributions from those in the entertainment industry, also offered support:

Barack Obama said he stands with the writers and urged producers to work with them to end the strike.

Hillary Rodham Clinton called for a contract that recognizes the contributions writers make to the entertainment industry.

Has John Edwards weighed in yet?

Day One strike news here and here.

The New York Times reports that MSNBC is so happy with Keith Olbermann, it is thinking of adding liberal shows to its nighttime lineup. The article devotes a lot of space to anonymous network execs who say Rosie O'Donnell is under serious consideration as a prime-time show host.

Two NBC executives acknowledged yesterday that they were talking to Rosie O’Donnell about a prime-time show on MSNBC.

I hope NBC is just floating her name just to gauge the reaction. It would be a huge mistake in my opinion.

MSNBC needs to stop playing catch-up and start being innovative. Surely there's someone with a modicum of journalistic credentials and a less antagonizing personality than Rosie. If they are committed to going the comedienne-day time talk route, I'd rather see them move Ellen DeGeneres into prime time. At least she's funny.

Seriously, though, who would you tell MSNBC to hire?

A federal jury in San Diego today found contractor Brent Wilkes guilty on all 13 counts.

The Judge told Wilkes to bring his toothbrush when he comes back for sentencing:

Burns set a Jan. 28 sentencing date for Wilkes, warning the defendant that he usually remands convicts directly to prison custody.

Looks like the jury believed the prostitutes over Wilkes, who testified in his own defense. And once again, a laughing jury doesn't bode well for the defense.

Wilkes also faces a second, 30 count federal bribery trial with his childhood friend, former CIA Executive Director Kyle Foggo.

Incredible:

Rudy Giuliani said Monday that if his achievements as president are as good as the crime-reduction results of his New York police commissioner, a man now under criminal investigation himself, "this country will be in great shape." . . . Kerik, whom Giuliani pushed to head the federal Department of Homeland Security, is under investigation on what could be multiple felony charges. . . .

Too funny.

Senator Barack Obama has run a campaign criticizing what he calls the Politics of the Moment all the while campaigning for his moments. Well, if this is true, an Obama Moment can emerge:

Despite their rhetoric about not wanting to hand President Bush another "blank check" for the Iraq War, Democrats appear poised to give him exactly that -- enough cash to keep the war going full steam for as long as six months, no strings attached. . . .Democrats are quietly preparing to give the president enough spending flexibility to keep the war going anyway. . . . Democrats began approving billions in extra funding, starting with the first stopgap spending resolution [I have no idea what Roll Call is talking about here. I kow of no additional funding measrues that have been passed since the Iraq Supplelemental that was passed prior to Petraeus's testimony. Frankly, I think Roll Call is wrong.] Next up will be the regular Defense spending bill, expected to go to conference committee Tuesday. Although the bill is not expected to include funding specifically targeted to Iraq, Democrats plan to allow much of the funding to be diverted from regular Defense accounts to the war. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) The House can not pass such funding without the Senate. Senator Obama, just say no. Put a hold on such a bill. Lead a filibuster against it. This is your moment. Prove you are more than just pretty words.

Freedom loving:

Police fired tear gas and clubbed thousands of lawyers protesting President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's decision to impose emergency rule, as Western allies threatened to review aid to the troubled Muslim nation. Opposition groups put the number of arrests at 3,500, although the government reported half that.

Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 coup and is also head of Pakistan's army, suspended the constitution on Saturday ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on whether his recent re-election as president was legal. He ousted independent-minded judges, put a stranglehold on independent media and granted sweeping powers to authorities to crush dissent.

. . . Musharraf said Monday he would relinquish control of the military and return the country to "the same track as we were moving" but he gave no indication when the vote would take place.

"I am determined to remove my uniform once we correct these pillars — the judiciary, the executive, and the parliament," Musharraf was quoted by state-run Pakistan Television as telling foreign ambassadors Monday. . . .

They hate us for our freedoms. See also Devil's Tower's great post.

Atrios gets this utterly wrong:

It's also clear that there are factions that are very wedded to the "what Democrats need to do" literature because they're interested not in simply winning elections but in remaking the Democratic party in their image. For some the 2006 election win was premature as the Democrats won without massively repositioning themselves, proving it was possible.

First, I hope all Dems are interested in remaking the Democratic Party in their image. Is that not why we care so much? The issues? The substance? The ideology? We want to transform the Democratic Party. I think it is perfectly fair for those who disagree with any particular view (Atrios means the DLC types here) to try and do the same thing. Let the debate rage on.

Second, the Democrats very much remade their image in the 2006 election. They became the anti-Iraq War Party. It is why they won. The Dems massively repositioned themselves. That they have failed to stick to their guns is another matter. But in 2006, the Dems fought against the war and stood up to Rove's "cut and run" nonsense.

I'm not quite ready to drive down the mountain yet. Until I get home tonight, here's an open thread for you. And a picture of the peacock who lives in the house I'm staying at.

I see there's a new attack on the Eagles' new album for promoting fear about global warming and not attacking islamo-fascism.

There's a Wal-Mart in Glenwood Springs I have to pass on the way to I-70. I think I'll stop in and buy it for the ride home and see for myself.

And it is the bad kind of doubletalk:

John Edwards on Sunday said he opposes a new program in New York to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, but the Democratic presidential candidate offered much the same plan for establishing a licensing system as his chief rival and party primary frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

So much for the straight talk. And note this is a xenophobic flip flop from Edwards' 2004 position:

The former North Carolina senator, who unequivocally supported issuing driver's licenses to illegals when he was running for vice president in 2004, said that it should be up to the states to decide whether to issue licenses to illegals.

Read the doubletalk:

Mediation talks failed, the writers are on strike.

One of the sticking points: How much the writers should be paid when their shows are sold over the internet.

The question now is no longer whether or when they will strike, but how long a walkout will last and how much pain it will inflict.

Both sides are girding for what many believe will be a long and debilitating strike, potentially more disruptive than the 22-week walkout by writers in 1988, which cost the entertainment industry an estimated $500 million.