Dana Milbank writes about why (he thinks) the Democratic Party would be in better shape today if Hillary Clinton were president:

Clinton campaign advisers I spoke with say she almost certainly would have pulled the plug on comprehensive health-care reform rather than allow it to monopolize the agenda for 15 months. She would have settled for a few popular items such as children’s coverage and a ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions. That would have left millions uninsured, but it also would have left Democrats in a stronger political position and given them more strength to focus on job creation and other matters, such as immigration and energy.

In his Friday column, Paul Krugman demolished the argument that President Obama should have “focused” on jobs instead of health care. It’s not as if Obama was ignoring the issue of economic stimulus while he “focused” on health care. His administration did get an economic stimulus package through Congress. The problem was that Obama took what seemed to be the politically cautious course and allowed the stimulus to be watered down to please Blue Dogs and Republicans. And, as a result, it didn’t do enough stimulatin’.

“Mr. Obama’s problem wasn’t lack of focus; it was lack of audacity,” Krugman writes.

It was a mistake to let the health care reform wars drag on as long as they did, and the blame for that can be spread around. But I fail to see how a complete sellout (as opposed to a significant watering down) of a major campaign pledge would have made progressive voters feel less disappointed.

Do we know for certain that a President Clinton would have put forth a more audacious stimulus plan after having kicked health care reform completely under the bus? I’m not seeing any arguments that persuade me she would have. Her (and Bill’s) entire governing modus operandi has always been to bow to special interests and settle for tweaks for the people.

To be fair, Bill Clinton presided over the sweetest economy in at least 20 years, partly because he stood up to Republicans on taxes. Credit where credit is due. But other than that, more often than not, he settled for tweaks.

Part of Milbank’s argument is that in the 2008 primary Hillary Clinton had more support than did Obama from low-income white voters, a group that abandoned Dems in the mid-terms. But as Steve M. points out, Hillary Clinton’s reign as blue-collar queen was a passing phenomenon:

Yes, we know that Hillary Clinton became the Queen of the Working Class for a few months in 2008. But how did that happen? It happened in large part because she began seeking out white voters driven by racial animus only when the delegate math showed clearly (to everyone but her) that she’d been beaten. Her efforts were reinforced by propaganda from Republicans and GOP operatives who wanted to divide the Democratic Party and possibly produce a divided convention — all of a sudden they were full of praise for her.

Now, can we discuss what they would have been saying about her if she’d genuinely had a chance to win the nomination as the primaries moved into Appalachian states, or if she’d already handily defeated Obama, or if he’d never run? She wouldn’t be the working-class queen. She’d be the Alinsky-addled anti-war radical of vintage-1992 propaganda.

See also Zandar.

I’ve seen several commentaries that pointed out that many younger people who voted in 2008 stayed home in 2010. The reason, I dare say, is that the Dems hadn’t done enough to show them that it matters who controls Congress. They rallied in 2008 for big, progressive change, and they didn’t get it. I don’t blame them for feeling let down. But I fear they’re about to learn that there are worse things than feeling let down.

The sad thing is that President Obama has delivered on more progressive achievements than any Dem president since Lyndon Johnson. That there seems little to show for it at this point in his presidency says a lot about the lack of progressive achievements since Lyndon Johnson. But I see no evidence whatsoever that Hillary Clinton would have saved the day.

I have held off commenting on Keith Olbermann’s suspension from MSNBC, figuring another shoe would drop eventually. I just didn’t know whose shoe. Lee Fang at Think Progress is on to something, I do believe.

Having ripped my former state of residence, New Jersey, I sorrowfully must turn to my state of origin, Missouri. I read that the new majority leader in the Missouri statehouse is an “unapologetic birther.” The creepy Roy Blount won the U.S. Senate seat easily over Robin Carnahan. Although some Dems won in their congressional districts, the state really does seem a lot “redder” than it used to be.

The state wasn’t always crazy; it gave us Harry Truman, after all. One of Missouri’s most distinguished senators was Stuart Symington, a Democrat who served in the U.S. Senate from 1953 to 1976. Symington was a vocal opponent of Joe McCarthy and also refused to speak to racially segregated audiences in the South when he ran for the presidential nomination in 1960. That was one reason he lost the nomination, I believe.

Now, Missouri sends Roy Blount to the Senate. Like I said, creepy.

Of course, the statehouse has long had its share of whackjobs. I remember that while I was a student at the U. of Missouri journalism school, class of 1973, the state legislature seemed to spend most of its time debating a ban on large Woodstock-type rock concerts in the state (as if). But even in the 1970s it was not at all impossible for a New Deal-style Democrat to win elections. Apparently this year the state legislature spent most of its time denouncing health care reform and thinking up new ways to restrict access to abortion.

In a particularly brilliant move, this year the legislature passed an abortion restriction bill that, among other things, “requires abortion clinics to post signs that promise state-backed assistance should a woman carry a child to term and assistance in caring for that child once born.” Then in separate legislation they cut funding for the programs that provide those services.

But then there’s New York. I have lived in New York state for ten years now, and I still haven’t figured out how Albany functions. However, I’ve come to realize no one else understands it, either.

It’s been a while since I’ve lived in New Jersey, although I see it frequently from the Hudson River’s other shore. And I’m really curious to know how actual New Jersey residents feel about Gov. Christie so far. ‘Cause if I still lived there, I don’t think I’d like him much.

First, he killed the Access to the Region’s Core (ARC) project, already underway, which would have provided new train tunnels under the Hudson from New Jersey to midtown Manhattan. The tunnel was considered essential to New Jersey’s future economic growth.

And commuting from New Jersey into Manhattan, which half the state seems to do every weekday, is slow, stressful, exhausting. The amount of gasoline burned as traffic creeps across the George Washington Bridge or through the Lincoln tunnel every morning and evening is incalculable. And I haven’t seen any estimates of how many people lost jobs when the project stopped.

Richard C. Leone writes for the Newark Star-Ledger that many “saw the step as a ploy to redirect New Jersey’s share of the cost of the tunnel to the state’s Transportation Trust Fund, which is broke.” Normally the Transportation Trust Fund would be replenished by adjusting the state gasoline tax. But of course there is nothing more important than not raising a tax.

The essential paradox is that curtailing public-sector projects when confronting a weak economy is damaging in two ways. First, it ignores the healthy effects on the overall economy of a boost in capital spending by either the public or private sector. Infrastructure jobs tend to pay well and, of course, have a multiplier effect as those who work on such projects spend more on other goods and services.

Secondly, capital expenditures have a beneficial, long-term effect on economic growth.
Despite these factors, which are pretty much acknowledged by economists of just about every stripe, the United States is falling behind in infrastructure — and not just behind the most advanced nations. We are lagging well behind the huge capital outlays in China, for example. Of course, giving up something now in order to have more later requires a certain amount of trust in the entity making the investments.

In our case, we are experiencing billions of dollars being spent to argue the case that government can’t be trusted to do anything.

Now Christie’s balancing the state’s budget by cutting 1,200 state government jobs. And he promises to “monitor tax revenues and make adjustments if warranted.” But revenues are likely to go down because of job losses, so more layoffs will be needed.

At least Christie says (so far) he’s resisting the many calls to run for president in 2012. What a guy.

Update: The Washington senate race has been called for Patty Murray.

As of 7:30 this morning the Murray-Rossi Senate race in Washington is not yet called, but with 74 percent of the vote counted Murray now has about a 2 percentage point lead. David NYC of Swing State Project writes that Rossi is doing worse in some districts than he did in 2004, when he ran unsuccessfully for governor.

As a commenter to the last post pointed out, there is some dispute of NBC’s calculation that only 32 percent of “tea party” candidates won their elections. The argument is that NBC’s calculations left out a great many “tea party” candidates that won elections Tuesday.

However, I don’t think NBC should be blamed for being confused. What distinguishes a “tea party” candidate from a regular Republican candidate? About the only “cause” the teabaggers seem to agree on is that they want taxes and non-defense government spending cut, and they want “smaller” government. And this is different from other Republicans, how, exactly? The GOP has been babbling this same line for more than 30 years.

NBC’s Alexandra Moe explained which politicians were considered “tea party” candidates:

Identifying Tea Party candidates is undoubtedly inexact. Our criteria, generally, was to include anyone who has either been backed by a Tea Party group or has identified themselves as a member of the Tea Party movement. Toward the end of this cycle, however, seemingly every Republican was trying to associate themselves this way. One left off the list was Dino Rossi, despite Jim DeMint endorsing him, since Tea Party groups backed Clint Didier in the primary.

A rightie blogger lists a number of “tea party” candidates NBC left out who seem to have met NBC’s criteria and should have been included.

But it would be interesting to know which self-identified tea partiers also received the support of the Old Guard, in particular organizations associated with Karl Rove and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? These groups babble about tax cuts and small government also, but the real agenda is to sell America off in pieces to multinational corporations, outsource any job with decent pay to some third world country and render us ordinary citizens into sharecroppers on the Koch Industries plantation.

And, Florida, do you realize just how sleazy and corrupt your new tea-party-backed governor actually is? This is from something I wrote for Op Ed News last year:

Richard L. Scott was a Dallas lawyer with no background in medicine, but who specialized in hospital and health care mergers and acquisitions. In 1987, he and Richard Rainwater, a Texas investor and fund manager, each put up $125,000 to start a company called Columbia Hospital Corporation. (In the 1990s Scott and Rainwater also were partners with George W. Bush in ownership of the Texas Rangers.) In 1988, Columbia bought two hospitals in El Paso, Texas. The partners acquired more hospitals through stock purchases. In 1994, Columbia acquired Nashville-based Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), founded by the Frist family, of which former Republican Senator Bill Frist is a member.

By 1997, Scott was Chairman and CEO of Columbia/HCA, then the world’s largest health care provider. Scott headed an empire of more than 340 hospitals, many other health care properties, which had annual revenues in excess of $23 billion. But that year, evidence of Medicare fraud emerged, and federal agents seized records from several Columbia/HCA locations. In July 1997, Scott was forced out by the board of directors and replaced by Thomas Frist, Jr., HCA founder and brother of Sen. Bill Frist. Columbia/HCA admitted to “systematically overcharging the government” and increasing “Medicare billings by exaggerating” illnesses, and paid $1.7 billion to settle. …

… One of Scott’s trademark tactics was to eliminate competition by buying nearby hospitals and shutting them down, so that his chain could dominate the local hospital market. He argued that this made money for his shareholders, but in many cases this angered local communities, and in some cases the Federal Trade Commission was called in to thwart Scott’s plans.

And then in 1997 the fraudulent billing practices came to light. Scott himself was never accused of a crime. However, Dan Ackman wrote for Forbes (December 14, 2000) that the seven-year federal investigation of Columbia/HCA revealed a pattern of fraud that “ran deep within HCA’s way of doing business.”

“The company admitted to systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about how hospital space was being used.

“The company increased Medicare billings by exaggerating the seriousness of the illnesses they were treating. It also granted doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. In addition, it gave doctors ‘loans’ that were never expected to be paid back, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.”

Folks, that’s your “free market” health care system at work.

Good luck, Florida. You’ll need it.

A few bright spots in the fog –

Blue Dogs Go Down — Alex Pareene lists the 16 Blue Dog Democrats who voted with House Republicans against extending unemployment benefits. Only three of them are returning to Congress next year. Boo bleeping hoo.

Tea Party Losers — Just 32% of Tea Party candidates win, says NBC’s Alexandra Moe, although I can’t say I understand her calculations.

Given these two facts above, expect the punditocracy and Beltway Conventional Wisdom to decide Democrats need to move right to appease the almighty teabaggers. Whatever.

The Denver Post says Democrat Michael Bennet has won the Colorado U.S. Senate election over Republican Ken Buck. MSNBC hasn’t called it yet, I don’t think, but with 90 percent of the vote Bennet is ahead.

No one has called Washington state yet, but Patty Murray’s lead over Dino Rossi seems to be holding and has gotten a hair wider this afternoon from what it was this morning. No one seems to expect a result today, though.

It appears Dems will hang on to the Senate, although it’s close. As of this morning the Dems have 49 Senate seats and Republicans have 46. Three races are undecided, and in two of those — Colorado and Washington — the Dem is ahead by a hair but votes still are being counted.

It appears Republican Lisa Murkowski will win Alaska with write-in votes. And if the write-in votes are discounted somehow, the troglodyte GOP candidate Miller is second. So the GOP will keep Alaska, giving them 47 Senate seats.

The Dems have two independent senators who caucus with them, which gives them (in effect) 51 votes as of now, without Colorado and Washington. But one of those independents is Joe Lieberman, who may very well take this opportunity to stab his former party in the back and caucus with Republicans. It would be the Lieberman thing to do, especially if the Dems lose Colorado and Washington.

So if Lieberman switches parties, that would be 50 Dem votes and 48 Republican votes in the Senate. And then if both Washington and Colorado were to fall to Republicans, it would be a 50-50 Senate. We’d have only Joe Biden in tie-breaking capacity to tilt the votes to Dems. So keep your fingers crossed for Washington and Colorado. (Nate Silver thinks the Dems probably will keep those seats, but it’s way close.)

On the bright side, let us note that Harry Reid’s win in Nevada was made possible only by the tea-party inspired nomination of the worst possible Republican candidate. And need I say — Christine O’Donnell? Were it not for the crazies in the Tea Party, Republicans had a real shot at taking back the Senate as well as the House. GOP party elites may be fantasizing about “second amendment solutions” to its tea party problem this morning.

Another bright light in the gloom is that Barbara Boxer will keep her California seat. And good luck being governor again, Jerry Brown!

I have been out this evening and just got back to learn that Ron Johnson beat Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. I see Rubio is in in Florida and Rand Paul won in Kentucky. Kentucky has a lot to answer for.

I’m not going to stay up late tonight to see West Coast results, but please do talk among yourselves about the evening.

Sometimes I like to pretend life is just a Monopoly game, and I am a thimble who lives in a little green plastic house on Baltic Avenue. I’m happy whenever I can get around the board once and collect my $200 without going to jail. However, today I drew the “car repair” Chance card and must cough up a bunch of money to get the Mahamobile out of the garage. So I’m cranking the Miss Lucy Memorial Fundraiser up again.

It’s been about a year since I’ve done any fund-raising, and I’m in a hole because of Miss Lucy’s vet and crematory costs, so I’m banging the tin cup again. Right now I can’t even spring Lucy’s ashes from the mortuary, never mind catch up on the bills that didn’t get paid because I had to get her veterinary care. I would be most grateful for whatever you can spare.

And if all you can spare is $1, I’d be grateful for that. If everyone who drops by here every day chipped in just $1, it would make a real difference to me.

And if not for me, give so I can bring Lucy home.

For those of you experiencing fatal failures with PayPal, I also have an Open Salon blog on which I post once in a blue moon. If you go to the most recent post you ought to be able to find a “tip” box at the bottom of the post, and this sends money to something that isn’t PayPal. I have no idea what kind of hoops that system makes you jump through, though.

In other news — today is election day, folks, and conventional wisdom says Dems will lose a lot of seats in Congress and probably lose the House altogether. Nate Silver says it is possible, if unlikely, that Dems could do better than expected and keep the House. It’s also possible Republicans could do better than expected.

Righties, who have a childlike inability to temper expectations, are already celebrating their blowout. And of course if they pick up fewer than the expected 50-60 seats in the House, they will be screaming about voter fraud.