Nate Silver points out that Minnesota's recount law, which is otherwise admirable, doesn't seem to provide disincentives for making frivolous challenges to ballots.  Therefore, all Norm Coleman has to do to make it look like he's gaining votes is to issue frivolous challenges like crazy -- which is what seems to be happening almost everywhere in the state except for Ramsey County, where both sides have some sort of agreement not to do this.  Franken, after a day of relative restraint, started ramping up his challenges as well, though Coleman still has made more of them.

Now, while all of this may seem rather silly and time-consuming, at least there are actual physical ballots to be recounted. Consider this from The Brad Blog: 

Here's a look at a handful of some of those challenged ballots from Minnesota Public Radio, who has been posting some of them, and allowing readers to decide which way they should be adjudicated in a reader's poll.

MPR also asked readers whether they thought "these ballots make the case for electronic voting?" We're happy to note that, almost to a person, the response from readers was akin to: "Are you frickin' kidding us?! Of course not!!!"

Naturally, The BRAD BLOG heartily concurs with those smart readers, and by way of emphasis points you to these disputed ballots from the still-undecided U.S. Senate race in Georgia, which will have a run-off on December 2nd:... ... ...

...Oh, wait, there are no such ballots posted for transparent debate by the public or anybody else, because none exist. They use 100% invisible, unverifiable, reviewable-by-no-one, faith-based electronic "ballots" cast on touch-screen Diebold machines across the entire state. So nobody is able to determine if even one of them was recorded accurately as per any voter's intent.

That unfortunate fact has once gain re-opened still more debate about the 2002 U.S. Senate race there, where Saxby Chambliss was reported by Diebold to have defeated incumbent Sen. Max Cleland, despite pre-election polls showing he should have lost, and despite the company having installed uncertified software patches, secretly, just days before the election. Unlike this year's MN race, the GA race in 2002, as well as the still-undecided 2008 race, will likely never be resolved to the public's satisfaction.

 Indeed.

Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one. Remember this is the movement that was right about Iraq, right about wage stagnation and inequality, right about financial deregulation, right about global warming and right about health care. And I don't just mean in that in a sectarian way. I mean to say that the emerging establishment consensus on all of these issues came from the left. There's tons of things the left is right about that aren't even close to mainstream (taking a hatchet to the national security state and ending the prison industrial complex to name just two), but hopefully we're moving there.

Many people managed to convince themselves that Obama was a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool progressive at some point during the primaries.  For no reason as far as I could tell -- his voting record in the Senate was pretty much identical to Hillary Clinton's, and the people he surrounded himself with weren't exactly "outsiders."  But in the midst of the pie fights, that hardly seemed worth dwelling on for the pointless vitriolic arguments it would have engendered.

I'm actually modestly sympathetic to his current predicament.  There are an awful lot of entrenched interests who will quickly line up to sabotage Obama if they think their privilege is threatened before he's even out of the gate  -- we're talking about a group of bitter Beltway denizens, after all, who hamstrung Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for populating their administrations with "outsiders" simply for the catty, junior high hell of it.  

Obama is going to have to keep these vultures somewhat quiescent if he's going to achieve any real change.

His isn't the administration I'd pick, but the proof will be in what he actually does.  If  for instance he sets up a panel to take on torture, opens up intelligence files and lets the public know how this horrible, malignant policy came to pass, it will go a long way towards assuring people that a choice like Brennan for CIA chief isn't just "business as usual."

Look, for people who convinced themselves that Obama was the second coming of Saul Alinsky -- wake up.  He never was.  He may, however, be the most progressive person we could have possibly hoped to elect as President of the United States.  

Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to help keep the obstructionists off his back and push him to fulfill his campaign promises to end the war, pass health care legislation and the Employee Free Choice Act, clean up the environment, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, repair our infrastructure, create good jobs and restore the middle class. 

That's what he promised us, and while I'm obviously not wild about the dearth of progressives in his administration (while anti-choicers like Hagel and Lugar are evidently a-okay), I'm less concerned with who he chooses to implement his policies than with his ability to ultimately do so.

"I believe it's unethical to do this. Clearly the people voted for change," Boxer said. She said she had discussed the issue with members of President-elect's transition team, adding: "They are on top of it."

Responding to congressional inquiries, Luis A. Reyes, deputy assistant to the president for presidential personnel, sent a letter yesterday to Democratic Sens. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) denying that a concerted effort was taking place. 

Seems that vacant science agency jobs are going to non-scientists, and the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is having none of it:

"It's ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure," said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "You'd just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments."

Ha, ha! "Leave wreckage behind" might as well be the BushCheneyCo motto, sir!  Here are some newly-revealed burrowed-in Bushies:

In one recent example, Todd Harding -- a 30-year-old political appointee at the Energy Department -- applied for and won a post this month at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There, he told colleagues in a Nov. 12 e-mail, he will work on "space-based science using satellites for geostationary and meteorological data." Harding earned a bachelor's degree in government from Kentucky's Centre College, where he also chaired the Kentucky Federation of College Republicans.

Also this month, Erik Akers, the congressional relations chief for the Drug Enforcement Administration, gained a permanent post at the agency after being denied a lower-level career appointment late last year.

And in mid-July, Jeffrey T. Salmon, who has a doctorate in world politics and was a speechwriter for Vice President Cheney when he served as defense secretary, had been selected as deputy director for resource management in the Energy Department's Office of Science. In that position, he oversees decisions on its grants and budget.

And don't think these newly-sworn in public servants are making a financial sacrifice to serve their country, either. For at least one of them, his new civil service job is a real step up:

Akers's career path within the DEA over the past three years has yielded considerable financial benefits. For nine years before joining the DEA, he worked for Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and as the director of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, where in 2005, his last year on the Hill, he made $39,000, legislative records show.

In his political "Schedule C" job at the DEA, Akers had a salary range of $115,00 to $149,000, depending on his step. His new senior executive position pays from $114,000 to $172,200. 

January 20th can't come soon enough. The damage to be done in the next 58 days is incalculable.

"We are going to be in a discussion very soon about things to get ready for a new battle," he said.

Schubert took pains to distance the official Yes on 8 campaign from talk of ousting Supreme Court justices. "Any discussion of a recall right now is unnecessary and premature," he said.

The judiciary looks very askance at threats to its independence, especially when issued by parties with cases before them. I wonder if Chief Justice Ronald George is paying attention to the pattycake Prop 8 leaders are playing with their supporters on the recall question?

Blue Dog Congressional Democrats, joined by reactionary GOPs, expressed outrage at their stunning loss of the chair of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee to progressive icon Henry Waxman (D-21st Century):

Particularly upset were the conservative Blue Dog Democrats. One member said they were “in orbit — they think it’s a California takeover.”

The Blue Dogs appear terrified of the leftward turn Henry Waxman's upset victory might signal, and caution him to hew to the Magic Center:

Rep. Charlie Melancon (La.), a fellow new Blue Dog leader, agreed that centrists are still willing to work with Waxman.

“Give the man the opportunity to demonstrate that we’re not going ‘hard left,’ or ‘off the cliff’,” Melancon said. “There’s no fears, but there’s some concerns.”

Ha, ha! "Some concerns" that required you to change your underwear, maybe, Blue Dog?

And when a reactionary right-wing GOP joins the concern-trolling of the Blue Dogs, you can see who in Congress they are really most like:

Even a Republican, fellow Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, criticized Democrats for ousting Dingell. He noted that it came on the same day that a bailout for automakers collapsed in Congress.

“For working families, the American auto industry and our entire manufacturing base an already dim day has grown darker, due to this internecine betrayal of Chairman Dingell,” McCotter said in a statement.

It's a bright, progressive day for the People's House. We should celebrate this victory; it's a special one that bodes well for Progress and for Progressive ideas and ideals.  Of course, some go-slow reactionaries in our party can't see through their monocles:

“I think it was highly inappropriate. There was no obvious reason to make this change,” said Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), a Dingell whip and an ally on the measured approach to climate change. Another centrist Dingell supporter called the vote “an outrage.”

Boo fucking hoo. Your influence fades quickly as change overtakes the People's House. Can we hear a lamentation, please?

“We’ll work with the new leadership,” said Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.). “But to deny a man who defines the modern Congress ... is a mistake.”

Nice to know the Blue Dogs aren't planning to be completely obstructionist right out of the gate -- this "work with" attitude is one they ought to share with their GOP colleagues. It'll suit them as well.