Peter Daou in HuffPo, Liberal Bloggers to Dems and Obama: We Told You So, explores the two most prevalent reasons for the Republican win in Massachusetts:

The first, promulgated by conservatives, is that the new administration has moved too far to the left and alienated a large swath of independent and moderate voters.

The second, pushed by progressive activists and bloggers, is that the administration hasn't been true enough to fundamental Democratic principles, has embraced some of Bush's worst excesses on civil liberties, and has ditched popular ideas (like the public option) in favor of watered down centrist policies, thus looking weak and ineffectual.

The conservative argument is unpersuasive.

I think he's got a point. But I'll take it a few steps further. [More...]

I'll write about Massachusetts tomorrow. Tonight I see Josh Marshall is melting down because of this:

Two high-profile progressives--Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)--said the only way they could sign on to the Senate bill is if it was accompanied immediately, or even preceded by, a separate bill, making a number of major preemptive changes to what they regard as an inferior package.

"It would have to be so quick that they happen at the same time," Weiner said. [...] We've gotta recognize we have an entirely different scenario tomorrow." "You should do the other stuff first and then pass the Senate bill," Nadler told me. "I don't see how I could vote for the Senate bill," otherwise.

The AP has called the Massachussetts senate race for Scott Brown. Coakley called Brown to concede at 9:19pm ET.

Let the post-mortems and blame begin. (For me, it's relief, since I wanted her to lose, based her prosecutorial and crime warrior record.) BTD , who wanted Coakley to win, should be landing soon and will provide his analysis.

For me, it's back to American Idol (did you know Scott Brown's daughter was a semi-finalist?) She's been campaigning for her dad.

The Dems have some work to do between now and November. [More...]

Update 9:30 pm: AP calls the race for Brown. 84% in, Brown with 53%. Post-mortem thread here.

Update: 9:19 pm: 1435 of 2168 precincts reporting - 66% of vote -- Brown still 53%, Martha 46%. CNN's 9:15 story. 9:21 pm: 1494 of 2168 precincts reporting - 69% of vote, Brown still at 53%. Do we call the race for Brown yet?

Update: 9:07 pm ET: Brown's lead widens to 53% with 57% of the vote in. (1234 of 2168 precincts reporting.) Coakely's got a good lead in Boston, Lynn, and Lexington.

Update 9:04 pm ET: 52% of the votes are in, including some from the eastern part of the state. Brown is still ahead 52% to 47%. (1119 of 2168 precincts reporting.)

Update 8:52pm ET: More than 1/3 of 2168 precincts are in, 38% of vote is in. Still Brown 52%, Martha 47%. But it's the Western part of the state coming in, not Boston, where Martha should do better.

Update 8:35 pm ET: 192 precincts, 9% of vote in: Brown 52%, Coakley 47%.

Update 8:29 pm ET: 146 precincts in (7%), Brown 51%, Martha 48%. CNN pundits are already doing a post-mortem for the Dems. They think Brown will win. [More...]

Polls close in Massachusetts in 2 hours. I'm told that there is no exit polling going on so we'll have to see the vote count to see how it went. Of course, no exit polls means everyone gets to spin the results anyway they want.

Unfortunately for me, I won't get to spin until late tonight, as I am at the airport right now waiting for my flight. I think Jeralyn is arguing a motion this afternoon.

Give us your spin here.

This is an Open Thread.

For those who think it is simple for the House to just pass the Senate bill, consider this:

[A]ccording to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll [. . .], only 33 percent say President Obama's health-reform effort is a good idea, versus 46 percent who consider it a bad idea.

It is simply ridiculous to argue that the simple political calculus is to pass the Senate bill as is. At the least, a play to the Democratic base, especially unions, through a reconciliation modification is essential.

Speaking for me only

Make your prediction in this thread.

The only political cult I was ever in was the Wes Clark for President cult of 2003-2004. Via Spencer Ackerman, via Kagro, it may be time to put that cult back together:

There is chatter in Democratic circles about possible interest from Wesley Clark as a candidate for retiring Democrat Vic Snyder’s congressional seat. [. . .] A credible source says that an internal discussion is taking place, and that Clark is giving it serious consideration.

I'm in. Where's my kool-aid?

Speaking for me only

Josh Marshall writes about the political calculations for House Dems:

I think this is very simple. And we're about to see what the congressional Dems are made of. Obama too. [. . .] For the House liberals, it was clear that only very limited revisions were going to be gained in the House-Senate negotiations. It's one thing if someone wasn't going to vote for the final bill at all. But if they were, the differences between the senate bill and whatever the negotiation was going to produce simply were not going to be big enough -- not remotely -- to justify voting against it.

For the conservative Dems, if they already voted for the more liberal House bill, it won't help them a wink to refuse to vote for the senate bill now -- whether that means casting a no vote or just preventing it from coming up for a vote at all. This should be obvious to anyone who knows how 30 second TV ads work (or frankly, even how very reasonable political argument works). And the lesson of 1994 is clear: the folks who killed health care in 1994 didn't gain any benefit from it. They were the ones who got slaughtered in November.

This is absurd analysis. I'll explain why on the other side.

You may have missed it but there is an election in Massachusetts today. The weather. Bad news for Coakley, Zogby predicts Coakley win.

At Sports Left, boxing, PEDs and the Pacquiao-Mayweather contretemps are the topic this morning. Also see Thom Hauser's great piece on the subject.

Via Atrios, Harold Ford continues to amuse:

The interview - granted under the condition that the questions be limited to his rationale for running, and not issues - comes at the end of a rocky first week of buzz surrounding his potential candidacy [. . .] "This race isn't about feet, it's about issues," he said of ribbing he has taken on the web and elsewhere of his regular pedicures.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is an Open Thread.

This is for all the volunteer campaign workers of both candidates in Mass., trying to get out the vote for their candidate.

While BTD wants Coakely to win, I want Coakely to lose. She's too big a risk. The thought of another career prosecutor bent on the old law and order, crime warrior model, is a bigger threat to me than the possibility of losing the House version of the Health care bill. I'm resigned to the health care bill -- a bill that after all the compromising, bears little resemblance to what we progressives initially envisioned. I am not resigned to a Senator who will arrive in DC with alliances already formed with crime bill pushers like DiFi, Joe Biden, and every victims rights group in the nation. How long till we see a crime bill co-sponsored by Coakely and Jeff Sessions? [More...]

The Washington Post has obtained FBI internal memos and e-mails showing that the FBI illegally collected thousands of phone records from 2002 to 2006 by lying to phone companies and inventing fake terror emergencies. From the memos, and through interviews, it has learned:

E-mails obtained by The Washington Post detail how counterterrorism officials inside FBI headquarters did not follow their own procedures that were put in place to protect civil liberties. The stream of urgent requests for phone records also overwhelmed the FBI communications analysis unit with work that ultimately was not connected to imminent threats.

A Justice Department inspector general's report due out this month is expected to conclude that the FBI frequently violated the law with its emergency requests, bureau officials confirmed.

FBI General Counsel Valerie Peroni tells the Post the FBI violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Actby invoking non-existent emergencies to obtain the records. [More...]