But these day, Obama’s getting it from the left as well — an annoyance that’s moving toward anger in some cases and that could result in speed bumps if not derailment of some key policy goals.

Pick an issue — war in Afghanistan, healthcare reform, civil liberties, gay rights, closing the Guantanamo prison camp, global warming, the economy — and the criticism from liberal activists and commentators is growing at a time when Obama’s job approval rating has just dropped below the 50-percent mark, according to a Gallup Poll out Friday.

Some examples:

• New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, a Princeton economist and Nobel Prize winner, says the financial bailout has been “botched.”

“Throughout the financial crisis key officials — most notably Timothy Geithner, who was president of the New York Fed in 2008 and is now Treasury secretary — have shied away from doing anything that might rattle Wall Street,” he writes. “And the bitter paradox is that this play-it-safe approach has ended up undermining prospects for economic recovery.”

• On gay rights, a bunch of liberal activists and bloggers are organizing an effort to postpone donations to the Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America (the successor to the Obama election campaign). No more money, they say, until the Democratic Congress passes, and President Obama signs, legislation enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, repealing the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gays in uniform, and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act seen as a roadblock to same-sex marriage.

• The 5 million-member liberal group MoveOn.org threatens primary election challenges to “any Democratic senator who blocks an up-or-down vote on healthcare reform with a public option.” That could complicate things for Obama on a wide range of issues if he loses the bare filibuster-proof Senate majority next year.

• Global warming activist Bill McKibben says Obama has “punted on the hard questions around climate,” and he accuses Obama of an “unwillingness to lead.” Meanwhile, charges McKibben in a Mother Jones essay, there has been “the endless spinning of his climate negotiators … fibbing about the science.”

• At the left-leaning web site Truthout.org, regular columnist Tom Engelhardt writes what he calls “The Afghan Speech Obama Should Give (but Won’t).” Here, he fantasizes Obama telling the American people: “I have decided to send no more troops to Afghanistan. Beyond that, I believe it is in the national interest of the American people that this war, like the Iraq War, be drawn down.”

Meanwhile, the typically tart-tongued Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball” accuses Obama of “dithering” on Afghanistan — a play on former vice president Dick Cheney’s recent charge.

“Is he just too darned intellectual?” Matthews asks. “Too much the egghead? Why did he bow to that Japanese emperor? Why did he pick Tim Geithner to be his economic front-man? Why all this dithering over Afghanistan? And who thought it was a wonderful idea to bring the killers of 9/11 to New York City, the media capital of the world, so they could tell their story?”

Nobody ever said being president was easy, or that your campaign friends — many of them activists with agendas of their own — would always be your buddies. Which brings to mind something attributed to Harry Truman: “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”

—–

Follow us on Twitter.

Maj. Hasan, who allegedly killed 13 and wounded dozens during a Nov. 5 rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, is charged with 13 counts of murder, which could lead to a death penalty conviction at an Army court martial. Terror charges have not been filed.

Pending a series of legislative, Army, and Defense Department investigations into the rampage, the Obama administration has resisted the “terror” label. And one new poll shows slightly more Americans agreeing that the Fort Hood shooting was a “killing spree” rather than “an act of terrorism.”

But some US lawmakers see the terrorism analogy as fundamentally important to the inquiry — not just into Hasan’s motivations, but to national security generally in the Fort Hood aftermath.

At Senate hearings this week, some witnesses testified that “political correctness” undermined efforts to pinpoint Hasan and neutralize him before the shooting.

“The difference between the White House’s determination and many lawmakers’ perception is that President Obama and his advisors do not want to consider the massacre as an act of terror ‘yet’ while Senator Joe Lieberman and other legislators in both houses do see it as an ideologically motivated terror action,” says Walid Phares, an expert on Islamic jihad at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a conservative think tank in Washington.

“It will be ‘terrorism’ per Obama’s teams only if it is proven that there was a terror organization or a regime involved,” Mr. Phares adds. “In the eyes of lawmakers, it is about what inspires the action, not how it is conducted. Lieberman’s probe will eventually touch the ideological substance of the terror act.”

The search for Hasan’s inspiration is fodder for scoring political points as well as a genuine investigation.

“The [terror or not] argument sounds a lot like the argument taking place over hate crimes — only, liberals, in general, seem to be in favor of hate crime legislation but against calling the Fort Hood shooting a terrorist act, with conservatives, in general, taking the opposite tack,” writes Nicole Stockdale, of the Dallas Morning News.

So far, two Senate investigations — one led by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, the other by Sen. Carl Levin — have said their purpose is not to undermine a series of internal investigations, including one by the White House, but to see how such tragedies can be prevented in the future, possibly through new regulations and guidelines for the Army and the Attorney General about how to define and deal with Islamic dissidents.

Three out of five witnesses testifying at a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing this week called Hasan’s alleged rampage an act of terror, with the other two deferring to the judgment of prosecutors.

“We’ve got him on murder, that’s good enough,” Brian Jenkins, a RAND Corp. terrorism expert and former US Army Special Forces officer, told the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Thursday.

But it’s not a completely partisan divide: “There are some who are reluctant to call it terrorism but there is significant evidence that it is,” said Sen. Levin, a Democrat. “I’m not at all uneasy saying it sure looks like that.”

Some commentators argue that in this case reluctance by the administration to call Hasan a terrorist is wise.

“Given what looks like the security authorities’ wretched mishandling of the Hasan case — the guy appears to have done everything but paste an ‘Osama bin Laden Rocks’ bumper sticker on his car — there’s every reason for the administration and the FBI to want to put off a legislative reckoning for as long as possible,” columnist Tim Rutten writes in the Los Angeles Times Saturday. “ ‘We want to guarantee everyone a fair trial’ is always good cover. But in this case, it has the additional virtue of being true.”

There’s strong evidence on both sides of the debate — and growing worries that Hasan’s ultimate motive may never be known.

Hasan’s frequent contacts with US-born Al Qaeda recruiter Anwar Al-Awlaki and Hasan’s “Soldier of Allah” business cards seem to point to a political motivation that would fall into the terror definition.

At the same time, others have found evidence that his psychological state, not political leanings, were the primary reason for the attack. National Public Radio’s Daniel Zwerdling found an Army memo that showed Hasan, according to Mr. Zwerdling’s report, “proselytized patients … mishandled a homicidal patient [allowing] her to escape from the emergency room … and when he was supposed to be on call for emergencies, he didn’t even answer the phone.”

Americans are split on the question. A new Fox News poll has 49 percent calling it a “killing spree” and 44 percent calling it “an act of terrorism.” Sixty-three percent of Democrats call it a “killing spree” while 58 percent of Republicans call it “an act of terrorism,” according to the poll.

Predictably, online comments put the debate in its sharpest perspective.

Commenting on a Dallas Morning News blog whether the rampage was terrorism, “Jen” writes, “Those who are eager to label this an act of terrorism seem to be motivated out of a desire to generalize Hasan’s actions and (possible) motivation to all Muslims in the US or armed forces.”

Commenter Michael McCullough sees it from the other side of the fence.

“Those who are eager to label this a random act of violence seem not to want to admit that the worst terrorist act on US soil since 9/11 happened under Obama’s watch and could have been stopped if the government were not obsessed with political correctness,” he writes.

—–

Follow us on Twitter.

But given that some popularity polls have former vice presidential candidate — and ardent Obama critic — Sarah Palin nearly parallel with President Obama’s approval ratings, the Army faced a real conundrum when deciding how to deal with Ms. Palin’s on-base book signing scheduled for Monday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

The book, “Going Rogue,” describes Palin’s rise from hockey mom to governor of Alaska, to widely attacked (but also hugely popular) vice presidential candidate, whose independent streak caused the John McCain presidential campaign to opine that she was “going rogue.”

Fearful of a grandstanding political event — and citing military regulations that prohibit public criticism of the commander-in-chief on base — Fort Bragg brass first banned the media from an otherwise public event.

Facing pushback from the Associated Press and the Fayetteville Observer, the Army eventually pulled back, saying it would allow “limited” media access. Friday night, the Army threw up its beret in exasperation and decided to allow the whole dad gum national press gaggle to come down if they want to.

But Fort Bragg’s head-scratching over how to treat — and define — Ms. Palin goes to the heart of Newsweek’s cover story question: “How do you solve a problem like Sarah?” To solve a problem, you have to first define it. And as the Army found out, Palin, at least for now, is a political enigma.

And for the hyper-defining, acronym-crazy Army, that caused a bit of a meltdown, especially since Obama and Palin have dramatically different relationships with the military.

Commander-in-chief Obama, who is in the midst of making a major troop decision on Afghanistan, has no previous ties to the military, and is working to bolster civilian influence on the country’s military establishment.

Before she resigned as Alaska’s governor, Palin commanded the state’s National Guard. Her son Track is an Army soldier currently deployed overseas. She also plans to stop by Fort Hood, the site of the Nov. 5 rampage that killed 13 Americans.

Palin criticized the commander-in-chief in an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Friday night, citing national security specifically: “There’s some questionable actions that he’s taken so recently that I believe weakens our country and our security.”

Further complicating matters for the Army, Palin has been coy about her presidential plans, yet it’s clear to many insiders that she’s at least considering a 2012 presidential run. She outpaces all other self-described Republicans in polls.

But Palin is also widely despised and ridiculed, especially by liberal bloggers. About 50 percent of all Americans view her unfavorably, according to Pollster.com, and a far higher percentage than that — seven out of ten, according to a CNN poll this week — say she’s not qualified to be president.

Yet her stature has risen to the point where the President’s own fund-raising arm is using her as a foil to raise cash. Organizing For America began sending out letters this week hoping to raise $500,000 from Americans concerned about a “dangerous” Palin derailing healthcare reform.

For now, Palin seems to be enjoying the same kind of power Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have: The ability to shape debate without any real skin in the game. And that’s the point Army officials had to finally concede at Fort Bragg.

How did they do it?

In the end, the Army defined Palin not as a book author, but instead made a distinction between her being a “politician” and Obama being “an elected official.”

“Our fear was that this would turn out to be a political platform, and us being a military installation we don’t care who the politician is, we care who the elected official is,” said beleaguered Bragg spokesman Tom McCollum.

Late Friday, the Army relented completely, realizing that even the US Army is no match for the best-selling Ms. Palin and her battalion of hangers-on. For now, they decided, she doesn’t represent a threat to the President’s command.

“We have put out the word to the soldiers, they can talk about the book, talk about anything you want to,” Mr. McCollum said Friday night.

—–

Follow us on Twitter.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid apparently has the 60 votes he needs to prevent a Republican filibuster and proceed with a debate on the healthcare reform bill. The last two Democratic holdouts — Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas — have said they will vote to advance the bill to full Senate debate.

—–

Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s office phone lines have been tied up for weeks, but today — on the eve of a key vote to take up the Democratic healthcare reform — the lines have been jammed solid.

For those callers that could wait out the busy signals, the staff end of the conversations goes something like this: “She hasn’t made up her mind yet. Yes, I’ll tell her.”

The Arkansas Democrat is one of just two Senate Democrats who have not signaled their intent to vote with leadership to begin debate on an overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system. Activists on both sides of the issue are pounding offices of the undecided with calls. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana is also mum on her plans for the vote, expected at 8 p.m. on Saturday.

“We are not assuming a thing,” said Sen. Richard Durbin (D) of Illinois, the Senate majority whip. “We are working hard to bring all Democrats together for the 60 votes necessary to proceed to this historic debate.”

For Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the health reform bill is an epic political challenge. His caucus counts 60 members, including two independents. But thirteen Democratic Senators, like Lincoln, answer to a conservative electorate. So does Reid, who is trailing in the polls in his own reelection bid in Nevada. He will need the votes of every member of the Democratic caucus to win a vote to move the bill to the floor of the Senate.

Citing such polls, Republican critics of the bill say that Democrats who vote for it, even on this initial procedural vote, will pay a price if they have to face voters in next fall’s mid-term elections.

“By virtually every opinion poll, opposition to this plan is roughly 60-40. And in those more conservative states represented by more moderate Democrats, opposition runs even greater than two-to-one against this plan,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R) of Arizona, the Senate minority whip, in a press briefing Friday. “In view of that, it would be our hope that our more moderate colleagues on the Democratic side would respect the wishes of their constituents, rather than do the bidding of Harry Reid.”

But in the last few days, other uncommitted centrists have rallied behind the bill, at least for the first vote. Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, said on Tuesday that he was encouraged by what he had heard about the bill and would vote to move it to the floor. “Trust but verify,” he said.

After weeks of vetting concerns about the bill, Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska said today that he would not block the bill because he did not want to be an obstructionist.

Sen. Landrieu, a champion at wresting last-minute concessions for her state on the eve of big votes, is still reviewing the bill, according to a spokesman.

It’s a tough vote for these centrists, no matter how it turns out, especially for senators like Lincoln who face voters next year. Liberal groups are threatening to fund a primary opponent, if she votes against the bill. Conservative voters could balk, if she votes with it.

“Arkansas is a state with a lot of older voters, and they are not going to be very happy if she supports a plan that a majority of voters have not embraced,” says Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report. “It could become a brick in a larger message that she’s gone Washington, voting with the Democratic Party and not Arkansas.”

Sen. Mark Pryor (D) of Arkansas says he’s constantly fielding calls from voters alarmed by the number of big government bills pending in Congress, including healthcare and climate change. “They tell me: Just stop doing things to us,” he says.

See also:

Three gimmicks that make Senate healthcare bill look better

Illegal immigrants becoming a flashpoint in healthcare reform

—–

Follow us on Twitter.

The House bill, which passed Nov. 7, allows undocumented immigrants to purchase health insurance from a newly organized marketplace, or “exchange,” if they use their own money and receive no federal subsidy. The Senate bill, which begins its legislative journey on Saturday, bars illegal immigrants from using even their own money to buy insurance in the exchange.

Supporters of the House approach believe that allowing undocumented immigrants access to private health insurance, if it is not provided through their employer, would cut down on visits to the emergency room and thus would reduce everyone’s healthcare costs. Typically, healthcare providers pass along at least some of the costs of uncompensated care to paying customers.

“If they use their own money to purchase insurance without any taxpayer subsidy, it would make a lot of sense to offer that possibility,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D) of New Jersey said Thursday on ABC’s “Top Line” webcast.

Still, Senator Menendez does not intend to introduce an amendment when the Senate bill reaches the floor, says his press secretary, Afshin Mohamadi. “He’s going to look at the totality of the bill and judge it based on that, not one particular issue or another,” says Mr. Mohamadi.

Senator Menendez is the only Hispanic member of the Senate. If the Senate bill stands as is, then the immigration issue will have to be hashed out in conference. House speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will stand by her chamber’s version.

But even given that the House version disallows a federal subsidy for an undocumented worker’s health insurance, supporters of the House position may still have to fight a perception that such workers are gaining inappropriately under health reform. Critics of the House provision fear the government will look the other way as illegal immigrants get subsidized healthcare. They doubt that such workers’ immigration status will be checked.

It was President Obama’s comment about illegal immigrants in a speech to a joint session of Congress in September that prompted Rep. Joe Wilson (R) of South Carolina to shout out, “You lie!” Obama had said: “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

The Hispanic vote was a crucial piece of Obama’s winning coalition a year ago, and Democrats are hoping to hold onto that more than 2-1 margin in next year’s midterms.

Two days before the House vote on health reform, four members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, all Democrats, met with Obama to try to get White House backing for the House version regarding undocumented workers. That did not happen.

House Democratic Hispanics have not indicated what they will do if the Senate’s version makes the final bill, but for now they are putting out a hopeful message. “He is optimistic about the fact that we will be able to come up with something we can all agree on,” said an aide to a Hispanic Democrat speaking on background.

See also:

Five questions that could decide fate of healthcare reform bill

Senate Democrats backing down on tough anti-abortion measure

—–

Follow us on Twitter.

Call them what you will, cost-saving manipulations are often included in big pieces of Washington legislation. And the Senate’s healthcare overhaul bill may be no exception.

True, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) judges that the sweeping legislation – which Senators may begin debating Saturday – would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the next ten years.

But CBO’s number-crunching wizards have to work with the data they’ve been handed. And in putting the bill together, Senate Democratic leaders made a number of assumptions that critics say mask the bill’s true cost.

“They’re playing with the numbers here,” says Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a Washington D.C. consulting firm.

Here are three aspects of the Senate bill that Laszeweski and others call gimmicks:

Revenues first, benefits later. Much of the money raised by provisions of the Senate health reform bill would begin flowing in to the US Treasury years before the government’s largest new health expenditures would begin.

For instance, fees levied on health insurers and some medical manufacturers would bring in $9 billion in 2010, according to the CBO. A new tax on high-premium health plans would start up in 2013, raising $7 billion that year.

But the big costs would not start until 2014, when the bill would fully take effect. That’s when government subsidies to help low- and middle-income families purchase health insurance would start, for instance.

The bottom line? Of the bill’s estimated $130 billion in deficit reduction, $98 billion would pile up prior to 2014, when the government would start paying subsidies.

Assume no meddling. The CBO’s assessment of the Senate bill, made in a lengthy letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, says that CBO analysts assumed the legislation would stay unchanged in coming years. But the assessment notes that the bill “would put into effect a number of procedures that might be difficult to maintain over a long period of time.”

That might be wonk-speak for “no way is Congress going to keep its mitts off this one.”

Take doctor payments. The Senate bill assumes that payment rates for physician services under Medicare would go up in 2010 – and then be reduced by 23 percent in 2011. Would lawmakers really allow that to happen? Doubtful, say critics.

Class in session. The Senate bill would establish a new, voluntary long-term care insurance program – Community Living Assistance Services and Support, or CLASS.

This program would start taking in premiums right away, but would not have to pay out any benefits for some years to come. (See “Revenues first, benefits later,” above.) This income would help offset bill costs, making its fiscal impact look rosier.

By itself, this CLASS action would reduce the deficit by $72 billion through 2011, notes CBO.

In general, this sort of number-juggling often occurs when Congress is considering major pieces of legislation. President Bush’s tax cuts were enacted as temporary measures, set to expire after ten years, in part to mask their true cost in the future.

But deficit hawks remain concerned that the Senate health bill relies too much on gimmicks for its predicted reduction of the federal deficit.

“While this bill does a better job than the House version at reducing the deficit and controlling costs, it still doesn’t do enough,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in a statement on the legislation.

See also:

Five questions that could decide the fate of healthcare bill

Senate Democrats backing down on tough anti-abortion measure

—

Follow us on Twitter.

Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of the Big Apple and a Republican, is reported to be close to declaring himself a candidate to be the junior senator from New York.

If the feisty Giuliani decides to run, the national spotlight will shift to the state the same way it did when Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to run for US Senate from New York. A Giuliani candidacy would be sure to generate massive fundraising from both sides – the Democrats desperate to hold onto a seat currently held by their own Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and the Republicans smelling another way to chip away at the Obama advantage.

“This race is big because it’s New York and bigger because it’s Rudy,” says John Zogby of the Zogby International polling firm in Utica, N.Y.

Giuliani is best known for helping to pull New York through the shock of the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11. Almost every night he was on the national news, telling the world the city was tough, would survive, and could use their help. Soon after 9/11, he was termed “America’s mayor.”

But Giuliani would also have to dust off his campaign shoes. The last time he was elected to office – the mayor of New York – was 1997. In 2000, he started to run against Mrs. Clinton for the US Senate seat here but withdrew for medical reasons. Then, in 2006, Guiliani started a presidential campaign that made major mistakes: He skipped campaigning in Iowa and hardly campaigned in New Hampshire and South Carolina. He dropped out of the race.

A race now would not be a “cakewalk” for the former mayor, says Mr. Zogby, whose firm will be polling this weekend on Giuliani’s prospects in a campaign. Democrats hold a plurality in the state of New York, and Senator Gillibrand is sure to be pressing the Obama administration for more money for stimulus projects where she can give a check to a mayor. In fact, four of her last five press releases had to do with federal money going to help some upstate community or to expand a military base. “And I’m not so sure Rudy is so magical in upstate New York,” says Zogby.

The upstate vote is crucial for Republican candidates; it usually represents half of GOP primary votes. It’s not clear, moreover, if Giuliani will be the only Republican on the ballot. Three-time Gov. George Pataki (R)is reported to be thinking about running for the nomination. Zogby says Mr. Pataki would have the support of the party brass. But, he adds, “No one ever talks about the Pataki years or drives past the Pataki Bridge. There is no sense a dent was made.”

If Giuliani were to win the GOP primary, he would face Gillibrand. In early polling about a head-to-head matchup, the Marist Institute has found Giuliani winning 54 percent to 40 percent.

It would be “a very unusual situation: The challenger is better known than the incumbent,” says Lee Miringoff, director of polling at Marist in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.

But Giuliani would have to overcome some issues that the Gillibrand campaign would be sure to bring up (assuming she wins the Democratic nomination). For example, Bernard Kerick, Giuliani’s former police commissioner, received a jail sentence for lying to the US government when he was nominated to run the Department of Homeland Security. Guiliani had pressed the Bush administration to nominate Mr. Kerick.

Giuliani would also have to reassure Republican voters on issues such as gun control, abortion, gay rights, and his personal life. He would have to convince voters that he has the temperament to work with other politicians in passing legislation, analysts say. And he would no doubt be asked about his presidential aspirations.

That might be the least of his concerns, since Clinton ran for president after New Yorkers elected her to the Senate.

“New Yorkers don’t seem to mind if someone is thinking about running for president,” says Mr. Miringoff. “That’s why Broadway and all its lights are in New York.”

—-

Follow us on Twitter.

No, the hoopla surrounding this week’s release of Ms. Palin’s memoir, “Going Rogue,” has crystallized her as one of the great American celebrities of modern times.

Plucked from obscurity by John McCain, another politician famous for going rogue, the former governor of Alaska and vice presidential nominee has given our People-magazine-saturated culture exactly what it craves: beauty, drama, and enough everyday-ness to give average Joes and Janes something to relate to: a late-in-life baby with special needs, a rogue near-son-in-law, family photo albums that scream small-town America.

And, to keep the political press on its toes, she has left open the door to a possible run for the presidency in 2012. Not that most Americans think she’ll ever make the White House. A recent CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 71 percent of voters see her as “not qualified to be president.” But she does do well in early polls gauging who Republicans want as their nominee.

On the immediate horizon, she has demonstrated her power as a kingmaker – turning an obscure special House election in upper-upstate New York into a national GOP food fight, by endorsing the rogue third-party Conservative candidate.

Either way, people have an opinion of Palin. Even those who don’t love her, love holding her in disdain. Ardent Democrats subscribe to her SarahPAC emails just to get their partisan juices flowing, as she applauds “Patriots who fight for freedom” and talks about putting “America on the right path.” And when it comes to depictions of Palin that strike feminists as demeaning, women of all political stripes rally round her. It wasn’t difficult to see why Palin called the Newsweek cover shot of her in running togs “cheesy.”

Conservatives, too, have mixed feelings about Palin. Many love her populist appeal and articulation of conservative values, but some have dared to wonder aloud what all the fuss is about.

Peter Wehner, a former policy aide in the George W. Bush White House, writes on Commentary magazine’s blog: “For someone who is closely involved in politics, I guess I am a rarity: I don’t find Sarah Palin to be particularly interesting.”

Wehner doesn’t think Palin is the future of the GOP, and nominates folks like Rep. Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin, Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) of Indiana, and former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) of Florida for that job — men who are “conservative and principled, who radiate intellectual depth and calmness of purpose.”

“Palinism, as I understand it, is less a coherent philosophy or set of ideas and more an attitude and spirit,” he writes. “In that sense, she is a cultural figure much more than political one.”

But she is a cultural figure who sells books and magazines and air time — and knows how to speak to “tea-partiers,” an important center of conservative energy.

It’s even conceivable, writes PoliticsDaily.com columnist Walter Shapiro, that she could win the Republican nomination in 2012. Because of the Republicans’ “winner take all” primary system, she doesn’t need a majority of voters to come out on top.

“If Palin can maintain, say, 35-percent support in a multi-candidate presidential field, then she is the odds-on favorite for the GOP nomination,” Shapiro writes.

Watch to see if major states start changing their nomination rules, as a manifestation of a “top-down Stop Palin movement,” he says.

And if that happens, watch to see if Palin’s supporters fight back.

See also:

Obama on critical trip to Asia – but will he read Sarah Palin’s new book?

Is Sarah Palin Newsweek cover sexist? Palin says yes.

—–

Follow us on Twitter.

The vote comes eight months after Judge Hamilton was nominated to the Chicago-based appeals court.

Hamilton drew the first significant Republican opposition to a judicial nominee by President Obama. An attempted filibuster on Tuesday failed, with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama able to muster only 29 votes. Seventy senators agreed to allow the nomination to move forward to Thursday’s vote.

The Hamilton nomination was being closely watched for indications of whether the kind of fiery confirmation battles waged by Democrats against Bush nominees would now be waged by Republicans against Obama nominees. The answer is yes.

Moderate or activist?

Democrats have portrayed Hamilton as a judicial moderate and a consensus nominee. Republicans have highlighted some of his more controversial opinions – striking down as unconstitutional the opening prayer at the Indiana House of Representatives and blocking a state informed-consent abortion law for seven years. They say these and other decisions suggest Hamilton will be a liberal activist on the appeals court.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont said the judge had been the target of Republican delaying tactics and unfair distortion of his record.

“It is like the Salem witch trials. They see what they want to see,” Senator Leahy said of Hamilton’s critics.

Hamilton has served as a federal judge in Indiana for 15 years, presiding over 8,000 cases.

He won the support of both senators from Indiana, Democrat Evan Bayh and Republican Richard Lugar. The American Bar Association gave him a “well qualified” rating. The president of the conservative Indiana Federalist Society said he was an “excellent jurist with a first-rate intellect,” adding that Hamilton’s judicial philosophy is “left of center, but well within the mainstream.”

GOP critical of Hamilton’s past

In addition to several of his rulings, Republican critics have focused on Hamilton’s two months of work in the summer of 1979 – 30 years ago – as a fundraiser for the controversial group ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. They have also criticized his two years of service in 1987 and 1988 as a board member and vice president for litigation at the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.

Senator Sessions and other critics say Hamilton embraces Mr. Obama’s call for judges with empathy. In written answers to the Senate, Sessions said, Hamilton expressed the belief that judges may reach different decisions in cases depending on the practical consequences of the decision.

“That is not law, it is more akin to politics,” Sessions said.

Not all Republicans were persuaded. Senator Lugar, the senior Republican in the Senate, rejected claims that Hamilton’s judicial decisions reflect a political agenda. “I believe a closer look at his record will reveal that Judge Hamilton has not been a judicial activist and has ruled objectively and within the judicial mainstream,” he said in a speech on the Senate floor Monday.

Personal endorsement from a key Republican

“I have known David since his childhood,” said Lugar, in an unusually personal endorsement. “His father, Reverend Richard Hamilton, was our family’s pastor at St. Luke’s United Methodist Church in Indianapolis, where his mother was the soloist in the choir.”

Lugar continued: “Knowing first-hand his family’s character and commitment to service, it has been no surprise to me that David’s life has borne witness to the values learned in his youth.”

Hamilton is the nephew of former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton. He is a graduate of Haverford College and Yale Law School. In 1983-84, he clerked for Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Cudahy.

Hamilton will fill a seat left vacant by Judge Kenneth Ripple, a Reagan appointee, who took senior status last year.

He joins an 11-judge court staffed by seven judges appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democratic presidents. The circuit covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

There are currently 21 vacancies among the nation’s 179 federal appeals court judges. Obama has nominated 12 individuals, and two have been confirmed.

—–

Follow us on Twitter.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid says he plans to bring his newly unveiled, 10-year $848 billion healthcare overhaul bill to the Senate floor as early as Saturday. Senator Reid will need all of the chamber’s 58 Democrats, plus its two independents, to stand with him on key votes if the legislation is to proceed.

Such cohesiveness is not foreordained. Here are five questions, the answers to which will go a long way toward determining Reid’s ability to succeed:

1. Where’s Blanche? Some moderate Democratic senators have yet to commit to voting in favor of letting debate on the bill to begin. In particular, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, have expressed varying degrees of skepticism about the costs and possible government intrusiveness related to healthcare reform.

If Senator Lincoln and her fellow moderates abandon the majority leader, the health effort is toast. Reid must bring them into line if he is to have a chance of convincing the notoriously independent Independent Joe Lieberman of backing the bill, as well.

2. Who’s the defender of Medicare? Senate Republicans have been wooing the nation’s seniors in recent weeks by presenting themselves as the true protectors of Medicare, the popular government-run health program for those over age 65.

The Reid bill is partly paid for by slashing Medicare, said Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky in a speech on the Senate floor on Thursday.

Over 10 years, the bill would reduce Medicare spending by almost half a trillion dollars, said Senator McConnell.

“Hospitals, Medicare Advantage, nursing homes, home health, hospice – all of those will be slashed in this $465 billion cut to Medicare,” he said.

Yet AARP, the giant seniors’ lobby group, supports the bill and on Thursday issued a strong statement urging its passage.

The bill creates a new annual wellness benefit, provides free preventive care benefits, and sweetens the Medicare prescription-drug program, noted AARP.

“The legislation announced today makes progress toward achieving meaningful relief for millions of older Americans who still face challenges accessing affordable, quality health care services,” said AARP executive vice president Nancy LeaMond.

Seniors vote in disproportionate numbers. Which side will they choose as Medicare’s savior? The answer could sway the outcome in key states. (See “Where’s Blanche,” above.)

3. What’s with those numbers? On Thursday the Congressional Budget Office ruled that the $848 billion bill would in fact save the government $130 billion off the deficit in its first decade. In other words, new taxes, fees, and cost containment would pay for the bill, and then some.

Proponents reacted with relief to CBO’s judgment; cost concerns could sink the whole health reform effort. But the CBO forecast was far from definite. A CBO letter to Reid, dated Nov. 18, noted the “imprecision” of the calculation and the great degree of “uncertainty” inherent in healthcare reform finances.

Critics note that the bill does not include the $200 billion needed to avoid a 21 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements to doctors next year.

“If history is any guide … we can expect a host of accounting gimmicks to hide the bill’s true costs,” said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow in domestic policy at the Cato Institute, a policy think tank.

4. Who wins the “pocketbook test”? To the progressive healthcare advocacy group Families USA, the key assessment Americans should make about the Senate bill is a “personal pocketbook test.”

“Will the legislation result in needed financial relief for families struggling to pay for health coverage and cost?” said Ron Pollack, Families USA executive director.

Mr. Pollack’s answer is that the bill does pass such a test, due to its subsidies intended to limit a family of four with income of around $88,000 a year or less to spending no more than about 10 percent of income on health insurance premiums.

But Republicans insist that the answer is not clear cut and that the Reid bill could squeeze middle-class consumers by mandating that they purchase health insurance they can’t really afford.

5. When will history get here? The Senate debate on the health bill may be historic, but it is not timely. The health reform effort has blown through numerous deadlines established by both the White House and congressional leaders. While the delays may have been needed to pull together legislative language and support from stakeholders, they also could hurt the bill’s chance of final passage.

That’s because each day gone means it is one day closer to next year’s midterm elections, when many worried Democrats will be up for reelection. That’s a big reason Republicans are complaining that the effort has been too hasty, given the stakes.

As for Reid? He believes the finish line is finally in sight. “I’m confident we’ll cross it soon,” he said Wednesday night.

—-

See also:

Senate Democrats backing down on tough anti-abortion measure

Senate healthcare reform bill: What’s taking so long?

—-

Follow us on Twitter.