Getting to the heart of the craaaaaazy US health care debate

I've done it. I have finally got some sort of clue about the health care debate in America. After months of looking foggy-eyed across the pond at the angry debates over labyrinthine health policies, I've cracked it.

The heart of the debate is this - in the words of Barack Obama as delivered to a joint meeting of Congress this week:

...an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.

Fairly harmless hey? Hardly plucked from the pages of 'Das Kapital'. But this is what is causing him to be called a "socialist" by his opponents.

It is interesting to hear the Republican response to Obama's speech from Rep. Boustany (transcript here, video here), who is a former heart surgeon. It includes this:

Replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer.

From what I can make out, the only thing in Obama's plan which Boustany could be describing there is the option described in the quote from Obama at the top of this post. But how on earth could this be described as "replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care"? It's a marginal non-subsidised voluntary option. But old Boustany uses a sweeping statement as if the whole Obama plan is set to forcibly remove all families from their insurance policies and force them to take a government scheme.

Boustany's précis is precisely ludicrous. It is staggering that such a modest proposed solution (from Obama) for such a monumental moral and economic problem is being met with such an utterly stupid characterisation from the right wing. As Obama said twice:

...I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future.

I've watched the full video of the speech. As usual, there's great entertainment value from watching the Human Performing Seal, Nancy Pelosi, jumping up and down and clapping behind Obama. And watching the reluctant standing ovations from the Republicans, and when they are not quite sure whether to stand or sit, is fun. In an interesting example of anti-partisanship, Obama even gets a standing ovation from the Republicans (while most of the Democrats remain seated) for one point (his proposal to reform medical malpractice laws).

The moment when Rep Joe Wilson shouts out "You lie" is quite breathtaking. You can see it at 27:05 on the video below. Those two words may turn out to be fairly significant both in the health care debate and the career of Rep Wilson. His South Carolinan seat has now gone from relatively safe to very close overnight and his Democrat opponent has raised $700,000 in the couple of days since Wilson uttered those words.

Overall, the speech was in two halves. First, Obama very clearly and comprehensively outlined the plan in very attractive terms. Second, he did one of his oratorical soarings, invoking the words of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, whose prehumous letter he received recently. This bit towards the end is just sensational:

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter -- that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves. That was true then. It remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road -- to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term. But that is not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. (Applause.) I still believe -- I still believe that we can act when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.

All in all, a stunning speech which has met with significant improvements in both Obama's ratings and the public's perception of his health care plan.

Here is the full transcript of the Obama address and click below to see it in full on C-Span via YouTube:

Meanwhile in the US, the right wing flips its lid

One thing that has baffled me about American politics over the last nine months is the growth of the visceral and seething hatred for Barack Obama amongst foaming-at-the-mouth right wingnuts. It really has got quite astonishing and tends to coalesce around the word "socialist". But George Bush in his last seven months of office was twenty times more socialist than Obama has been in his first seven. Remember all that massive, sweeping, epic scale nationalisation old Dubya casually did as he polished up his cowboy boots to return to Texas? After that, it is almost inconceivable that Obama could exceed Bush's "socialism". Even his health plan is emphasising the benefits for the insured, rather than a "universal" plan for the uninsured.

But the latest sort of lightning rod for Obama hatred has been a plan for him to make a rather innocuous Presidential address to schoolkids. He'll be asking kids to work hard, do their homework, not to bunk off school, wash behind their ears...that sort of thing. And oh, it's an optional speech for schools to show to pupils.

But this has sent the wingnuts off into outer space with outrage. One Republican State chair said "the address is nothing more than a dastardly inculcation into socialism and a viral spread of liberal propaganda". A right wing commentator said "the republic is under attack".

There's been talk of the "fascist in chief" and parallels being made to the Hitler Youth - with Pink Floyd's "Leave our kids alone" refrain being brought into the debate.

Jason Links on Huffpo has a very amusing article about this:

Anyway, that's the state of the world today. If President Obama reminded people tomorrow to brush between meals, thousands of people would allow their teeth to rot right out of their heads, because OMGZ TEH SOCIALISM! The upside to all of this is that after Tuesday, every teacher in the world will know precisely what students are going to need remedial help.

Obama is learning the lessons of Clinton's ill-fated 1994 health care reform attempts

The New York Times has an excellent article on how Obama has learnt the main lessons of Bill Clinton's ill-fated early 1994 health care reform attempts, taking on board advice from key Clinton aides. In some cases, it notes, Obama has "over-learnt" the lessons. The main learnings are:

-Failure Is Not an Option.
-Know your audience -- insured taxpayers.
-Move before the honeymoon ends.
-Leave the details to Congress.
-Co-opt the opposition.
-Take what you can get.

Superb eulogy to Ted Kennedy

I've just watched President Obama's eulogy at Senator Ted Kennedy's funeral. It's not often you see a standing ovation at a funeral, but on this occasion it was perfectly appropriate. Obama gave a moving, dignified and informative tribute which was superb in summing up the remarkable life of this towering figure.

Here it is on YouTube:

Isn't it great to have a open mind?

Here's a great quote from Oklahoman US Senator James Inhofe on the embryonic Health reform bill:

I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways.

From the Express-Star with a hat-tip to Tagean Goddard's Political Wire.

Tributes to Ted Kennedy

The best tribute to Ted Kennedy I have read is this one from Michael Tomasky in the Guardian, entitled, simply, "Ted Kennedy made the US a better place":

There are and will be more Kennedys, but the Kennedy era is over now. Teddy was imperfect enough that some Americans will say amen to that. Let them. The rest of us know what a dramatically better place this country is because of him.

The Boston Globe has an excellent series of videos on You Tube which relate Ted Kennedy's life story. The series includes this video about the 1980 CBS interview with Roger Mudd, when Ted Kennedy had trouble answering the simple question: "Why do you want to be President?" It is perhaps an object lesson in how to get the truth out with a simple question:


Here also is the text of Kennedy's superb speech from the 1980 Democratic convention (thanks to Tony Ferguson for the link). You can hear the speech in two parts here , here, here and here. It is covered in a Boston Globe video here:

Senator Ted Kennedy RIP

I was very sad to hear of the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. He achieved more as a Senator than some US Presidents achieved in office. A towering figure in the US. He was a benchmark "liberal". In the USA that term is often used an insult but Ted Kennedy gave it a proud respectability by doggedly but eloquently holding his views, while, most importantly, working "across the aisle" to achieve progress. His was a great example to us all of a life of distinguished public service based on rock-solidly held principles.

Daily Kos gives this excellent tribute:

Kennedy was a liberal fighter in the old mold. The plethora of legislation he helped pass made life better for children, for the poor, for African-Americans, for immigrants, for workers. He didn't just give lip service to the rights of workers, he stood in their corner. He fought for access to health care and for quality education. And he opposed the likes of Robert Bork and others who wanted to trash the gains American women, workers and minorities had made over the years.
He will be sorely missed.

The Financial Times has a obituary here.

On BBC Breakfast their US correspondent suggested that Kennedy lost the 1980 Democratic nomination race against Carter due to the spectre of the Cappaquiddick accident. However, the more immediate cause was Ted Kennedy's disastrous interview with Roger Mudd of CBS, which Kennedy embarked upon without aides. Even the easy question "Why do you want to be president?" met with a response which was variously described as "unprepared", "rambling", "incoherent", "vague" and "repetitive". After that interview, it was down hill all the way as far as Kennedy's battle against Carter was concerned.

Indeed, Wikipedia observes:

Broadcaster and blogger Hugh Hewitt and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson have used the term "Roger Mudd moment" to describe a self-inflicted disastrous encounter with the press by a presidential candidate.

Obama's honeymoon ends in Cambridge

It's all a bit weird really. It is a gaffe from which Barack Obama is using his considerable reserves of "cool" ("Fancy a beer with Bazza, Sergeant?") to extract himself. But gaffe it, undeniably, is. And end of the 44th Presidential honeymoon it should be, but it's not as simple as that. Which makes it all the more fascinating. In fact, there are a number of fascinating aspects to this...and ironies (but perhaps not in the strictest sense - my offspring asked me what irony is the other day and I had to finally admit (after several attempts) that I really don't have a clue).

First, what on earth am I on about? - asks half of my reader.

Well, on July 16th a Harvard professor was coming home, in Cambridge Massachusetts, a stone's throw from Harvard square. His driver dropped him in front of his house and then assisted him in trying to get into his house because there was a problem with the door opening. A lady saw this and was alarmed. She called 911 for the police. A policeman arrived. Versions differ, but suffice it to say that it appears that said professor kicked up a bit of a fuss about being challenged for trying to enter his own home. Race was mentioned. Reports of the extent of that fuss vary (but, let's face it, professors generally are very good at kicking up fusses - particularly, I should imagine, Harvard ones - oops - sorry, prejudice and surmisal coming out there) but the policeman decided it was necessary to arrest the professor. Charges were later dropped.

(The incident is reported by the BBC here and Colin Powell reflects very sanely on it, from the point of view of a black man, here.)

The chain of command of the police in the USA is a bit different from the UK. After all, they fought and won a war to kick us out - so they're entitled to do things differently over there. However, it appears that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts come under the command of Comissioner Robert C Haas. He's a man with a very distinguished record of public service, who has been in post since April 2007. He's the man who should tackle any reports of misperformance by the police. Indeed, he has been so doing in this case.

My knowledge of US structures is a bit hazy after that. But I assume that the state police of Massachusetts comes under the control, eventually, of the Governor. Here's the first irony. Well actually it's probably not a true irony, but it is a little twist. The Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, is black. Indeed, he is one of the only four black Governors there have been in the history of the USA (New York Governor Patterson is one of the others, and he's also the second legally blind Governor in the US). There is nothing greatly significant there. It is just interesting that this episode has been ignited in a state with a Black governor and a country which now has its first Black President. I just mention it en passant.

So Deval Patrick is entitled to make some comment on this situation, I suppose. I am not quite sure why. These sorts of incidents happen all the time. Danders rise, charges are dropped, dogs bark and the caravan moves on.

So why on earth did President Obama get involved? It's a fascinating question. What he did was to say that police "acted stupidly". Why? I mean, why did he even comment on a very minor alleged neighbourhood infraction of the law?
A minor fracas, indeed. I realise the irony of me jumping to conclusions here, but Obama himself has now admitted that the professor may have over-reacted. Well, in an amateur photo (right) of the incident he has his mouth wide open and looks to be in the throes of a full-on diva strop - but that was after he was handcuffed - allegedly (and I hastily mention that, of course, having a diva strop, full-on or otherwise, is not necessarily against the law, nor should it be. And if you are arrested for entering your own home, it is fair to say that it is justifiable to throw a diva strop.). But, as I say, I am jumping to conclusions just like B. Obama, who I am criticising for that very reason - but then I am just a one-handed blogger, while he is the most powerful man in the world.

Here's another irony or twist (choose your own degree of lexicographic pedantry there) - Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Wouldn't holding that post entail him taking a cautious approach to local incidents? Allowing due process and all that? Isn't that what they teach you at the most minor college in America, let alone Harvard, Alma Mater of virtually the entire senior legal profession in the USA?

And, my goodness me, I am pinching myself here, but can anyone remember....I can hardly write this....George Bush (there I wrote it) piling in on a minuscule neighbourhood incident like this? I can't. ...And I tend to remember anything George Bush did which I can hold against him. What I do remember is that Bush hated getting involved in any legal cases and restricted his pardons to a very small number. The mere fact that I am harking back to George Bush's presidency with something approaching a favourable tinge, is testament, if any is needed, that this Cambridge incident really is a serious one for Obama. The gilt has been well and truly knocked off his gingerbread.

And here's another twist/irony. WTF is Obama doing making a comment without an autocue? Remember, this is Mr Cool. This is Mr Autocue. He doesn't do unprepared comments much. Even his off-the-cuff remarks are scripted. So what the heck is he doing making any unprepared statements? And on Race?! It beats me.

And having said all that, I should say that the police did seem to overact here. Prof Gates provided his university ID card and his drivers licence but, even then, the police still handcuffed him - on his own front porch!

But anyway, Obama has belatedly switched on the cool override. He appeared unannounced at a press briefing and said he'd spoken to police officer involved and invited him and the professor (Professor Henry Gates, by the way, who is a personal friend of Obama - which partly explains the President's involvement - as does the involvement of Governor Patrick) for a beer at the White House at 6pm EST on Thursday. Discussions are currently taking place as to whether the event will be marked by one of those uber-cool Presidential behind-the-scenes still photos or whether there will be the full "Press Spray".

Which brings us to the nub of this. A few silly commentators in the UK (mainly) questioned whether Obama is the first black President of the US. 'He's mixed race" they said. Yes, they are right. In the UK we call someone with mixed race parents "mixed race". Obama's mother was white. Fine. But hang on. Those silly commentators were ignoring a massive Elephant sitting in the corner of US History (probably somewhere in Virginia). It's called the "one drop rule". Even if your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather was black and the rest of your ancestors were white, you are "black" under the "one drop rule". (One drop of blood, that is). So OK, Obama could have gone round constantly telling people he was "mixed race" - just like Lewis Hamilton and Theo Walcott. But, spine chillingly, the "one drop rule" in the US means and meant that he is black.

So why did Obama comment on Prof Gates and his encounter with Sgt Crowley? I still don't know. Sorry. But it does confirm that those silly commentators were wrong. Obama is black. He knows, from experience, what it is like to attract undue suspicion and hostility just because of the colour of your skin. All of us who have built up Obama into a great calculating cool machine have had one thing confirmed. Barack Obama is human. He has passion. And good for him. On this occasion his passion is genuine and, on a general level, absolutely right. (There is ample evidence to suggest that black men tend to be disproportionately given the attention of the police in the USA.) It's just that he needs to remember he is President a bit more.

(And having said all that, I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama, apparently clumsily, may have done a bit of good. Should anyone be arrested on the basis of allegedly attempting to break into their own home, even after they provide ample evidence of their identity? If they kick up a bit of a fuss, is it really necessary to cart them off to the local nick, stick them in orange overalls and mug shot them? Are over-dramatic Harvard professors a threat to US peace and security? Shouldn't police officers in Cambridge, Massachusetts be ready to encounter the odd adacemic diva? Do real-life Inspector Morses in Oxford go about arresting professors who start spurting Latin at them in a bit of a strop?)

So, goodbye honeymoon. It was unrealistic to expect it to continue, anyway. For goodness sake, Obama is fighting the worst recession which any incoming US President has faced since FDR. He is currently trying to untangle the gordian knot of US Health Care. That, we should remember, is a task which completely, and dramatically defeated Bill Clinton, the biggest policy wonk and behind-the-scenes schmoozer ever to enter the White House. Our man Obama's ratings are going to travel south. That's inevitable. There was only one FDR.

When a s**t sandwich finally comes unstuck

It's worth reading this Time article, which chronicles the last hours of the Bush administration in regard to Dick Cheney's obsession with getting a pardon for Scooter Libby. This is quite an historic thing. George Bush and Dick Cheney were stuck together like a .......ahem...s**t sandwich for eight years. And yet, George Bush, in this episode, finally proved himself capable of taking a decision without Dick Cheney's acquiescence. Incredible.

Do people actually visit Presidential libraries?

George Bush is spending his time raising millions for his Presidential Library.

It made me wonder. Who would want to take a day out of their life to visit the George Bush Presidential Library? OK, so quite a few people will do it out of grim fascination, for the next few years. But in forty years time?

And how many relatively useless Presidential Libraries are strewn over the USA?

Well, let's just take the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library. Hoover was one of the most unpopular US Presidents, blamed for the Great Depression. In 2004, only 66,000 visited his library. That's just under Manchester United's average gate per match.

And the most popular US Presidential Library? As of 2005, strangely enough, it was that of Lyndon Johnson. Obviously, it was attended by many people anxious to be inside the tent.....

Sarah Palin's disastrous resignation speech writ large

This is a hoot. Vanity Fair asked their literary editor, their research department and their copy editor to go through Sarah Palin's resignation speech and correct it. What results is a sea of red, green and blue corrective ink all over the original speech transcript. I reproduce below just one page as an example (click on it to enlarge it) - Vanity Fair shows the rest here.

As Vanity Fair comments: "If you watched Sarah Palin’s resignation speech, you know one thing: her high-priced speechwriters moved back to the Beltway long ago."

Poll: 60% think Palin resignation was bad move

Oh dear. Only 16% of those polled in the US think that Sarah Palin's resignation as Alaskan governor is a good political move in respect of a future run for the Presidency.

Oh dear. Oh dear.

Dear me.

Texas Governor: Cutting his nose off to spite his face

Is there any greater indictment of the current utter stupidity of the US Republican party than this?

Rick Perry is the Republican Governor of the second most populous (and second largest) state of the Union, Texas. As CBS reports, he "was one of a handful of Republican governors who refused some federal stimulus funds from President Obama's economic recovery package on the grounds that there were too many strings attached to the money. Now that the state is dire straits, however, Perry is asking the federal government for a loan to cover the very expenses the rejected stimulus money would have paid for."

Derrrrr

Sarah Palin stands relatively alone amongst quitting first term governors

A poster on Mudflats has looked at all the first term Governors in the USA since 1900 - all 1200 of them. They found that there have been only three who have resigned without being forced to do so:

Jim McGreevy, Eliot Spitzer and Sarah Palin.

Jim McGreevy "coupled the announcement of his decision to resign with a public declaration of his homosexuality and an admission to having had an extramarital affair with the man he had appointed homeland security adviser".

Eliot Spitzer was alleged to have been involved in a prostitution ring.

Sarah Palin resigned because.....um.............er....................ah yes, she didn't want to be a lame duck.

Letterman: Top ten messages on Sarah Palin's answering machine

A bit of a grudge settler. Best watched here but the list is below anyway.

10. "Hi, it's George W. Bush. Why didn't anyone tell me resigning was an option?"
9. "It's John McCain--Why did I call?"
8. "Mark Sanford here. Ever been to Argentina?"
7. "I'm calling from Geico to see if you want to renew your dogsled insurance"
6. "It's Letterman. We still cool?"
5. "McCain again. Still no idea why I called"
4. "Hi, it's the dry cleaner. Having trouble getting caribou blood out of your Prada jacket"
3. "Hi, it's Sarah...Oops...Dialed my own number"
2. "Schwarzenegger here. If you want a job, California could use a new governor"
1. "Hey, it's McCain. Who would've thought you'd retire before I did"

When you represent Snowflake, I suppose you would think the world is 6,000 years old

With a hat-tip to the tweeting Asquith. What beats me is that this state Senator lives near the geological phenomenon which is the Grand Canyon, for goodness sake!

Maureen Dowd on nuttiness and battiness

I've just seen this beautifully written article on the Palin resignation from Maureen Dowd of the New York Times:

Sarah Palin showed on Friday that in one respect at least, she is qualified to be president.
Caribou Barbie is one nutty puppy.
Usually we don’t find that exquisite battiness in our leaders until they’ve been battered by sordid scandals like Watergate (Nixon), gnawing problems like Vietnam (L.B.J.), or scary threats like biological terrorism (Cheney).
When Lyndon Johnson was president, some of his staff began to think of him as “a sick man,” as Bill Moyers told Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Moyers and his fellow Johnson aide Dick Goodwin even began reading up on mental illness — Bill on manic depression and Dick on paranoia.
And so it was, Todd Purdum learned, as he traveled Alaska reporting on Palin for Vanity Fair, that the governor’s erratic and egoistic behavior has been a source of concern for people there.
“Several told me, independently of one another,” Purdum writes, “that they had consulted the definition of ‘narcissistic personality disorder’ in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders — ‘a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy’ — and thought it fit her perfectly.”
The White House can drive its inhabitants loopy. So at least Sarah Palin is ahead of the curve on that one.
As Alaskans settled in to enjoy holiday salmon bakes and the post-solstice thaw, their governor had a solipsistic meltdown so strange it made Sparky Sanford look like a model of stability.
On the shore of Lake Lucille, with wild fowl honking and the First Dude smiling, with Piper in the foreground and their Piper Cub in the background, the woman who took the Republican Party by storm only 10 months ago gave an incoherent, breathless and prickly stream of consciousness to a small group in her Wasilla yard. Gobsmacked Alaska politicians, Republican big shots, the national press, her brother, the D.C. lawyer who helped create her political action committee and yes, even Fox News, played catch-up.
What looked like a secret wedding turned out to be a public unraveling as the G.O.P. implosion continued: Sarah wanted everyone to know that she’s not having fun and people are being mean to her and she doesn’t feel like finishing her first term as governor.
She can hunt wolves from the air and field-dress a moose, but she fears being a lame duck? Some brickbats over her ethics and diva turns as John McCain’s running mate, and that dewy skin turns awfully thin.

Palin's bonkers moment - damage control or crash and burn?

Well, it's either bonkers or brilliant, but I suspect the former at the moment. To resign as Governor of Alaska completely undercuts the whole argument forwarded on her behalf for the last year - that she was a competent executive office holder. Her executive experience now looks threadbare and she looks as though she is abandoning the voters of Alaska to try to be President.

It really is one of the most insane, nutty political moves I have witnessed in many years.

"Only dead fish go with the flow" she says, in explanation. Ah but when the seagulls follow the trawler....

Perhaps this will precede a high-falluting shot at the Presidency but she's shot herself in the foot. She will, of course, get huge support from the Republican base. But independents and Democrats are not going to persuaded that she has suddenly become fit for public office by resigning from it.
Even Palin's Republican colleague, Sen Lisa Murkowski has criticised the move:

I am deeply disappointed that the Governor has decided to abandon the State and her constituents before her term has concluded.

As Bruce Reed reminds us, based on past history, quitters don't win.

The Huffpo reports that her allies are saying "She is out of politics, period...she doesn't like her life".

Whatever you say about Sarah Palin, she is never boring. Just imagine what would have happened if she had become Vice-President! A Veep quitting eight months after being elected for no apparent reason other than something to do with fish. It would initiate quite a national crisis.

The Palin resignation speech is worth watching below. It is positively stomach-churning.

The Palintology industry just keeps on giving...

There's an excellent and extensive article about the Alaskan wonder in Vanity Fair. In fact, it is so extensive that I am having to pencil off time in my diary to finish reading it.

In other Palin news, she now says she would beat Obama. She said she would have more "endurance" than Obama. ?????????? But, tellingly, she used her favourite and tiresome word "Betcha" when she said it, so I think we can be safe in filing it under "Bovine Scatology". I suspect a new Tina Fey impersonation script is being written as we speak....

Gaw blimey....couldn't she just have gone away and clobbered Moose for a few years?...

It's Senator Franken of Minnesota!

I had to rub my eyes when I saw the headlines on PoliticsHome: Franken gives victory speech / Coleman concedes. But it has happened. Eight months after those dear Minnesotans voted, Al Franken has emerged the victor and the Democrats theoretically have a veto-proof 60 seat holding of the US Senate. In practice, this relies on two ailing Senators (Kennedy and Byrd) attending simultaneously, which is unlikely, and, even then, all 60 Senators agreeing on something, also a slim probability.....

But for the moment let's just say that wonders never cease. A result in Minnesota! I thought we were in for another five months of Supreme Court warngling!

Brad Freidman has a superb analysis of this long-running battle on Comment is Free.