Keith Olbermann was certainly correct that giving a liberal commentator a show behind his lead-in would be a sure success. Rachel Maddow demonstrates this. But let me state this - Maddow has been surprisingly effective the times I have watched her in presenting the liberal perspective while retaining a sense of fealty to the facts. Facts good for Democrats of course (and what facts are not these days?), but facts nonetheless.

It seems a good thing for Maddow imo that she did not get a show during the Democratic primaries. When she was a guest on Olbermann's show and as part of NBC's election coverage, she demonstrated every tendency of becoming as hackish as Olbermann. I think she has largely avoided that, at least when I have watched her show. Good show, Rachel

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

It should be noted that for whatever reason, McCain has so far refused to go places that Hillary went in the primary (Wright, explicit comments about "hard-working, white" Americans supporting her, distributing emails with pictures of Obama in Muslim garb, etc.).

It should be noted that everyone of those charges is pure nonsense and Marshall should be ashamed for repeating them yet again. Hillary Clinton's campaign NEVER used Rev. Wright ever. When asked, she said she would not have him as her pastor. That was it. No ads. Nothing on Wright ever. The "hard working white Americans" line was the question she was asked by the AP reporter. It was another phony scandal, now a Josh Marshall specialty. But the one that takes the cake is the "Obama in Muslim garb" lie that DRUDGE sold and Marshall bought and still buys. What a disgraceful performance Josh Marshall has put in this campaign season. I'll be honest, I do not believe his site when it writes something about McCain. I have to see it somewhere else before I believe it now. I just do not trust his site anymore.

By Big Tent Democrat, definitely speaking only for me

Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller will join Fox News as a commentator on free speech issues, as well as those pertaining to foreign policy and national security.

"I get to spout my views, I will NOT be joining the news team," she stressed. "I care about First Amendment issues and free speech and I will talk about that and foreign policy if and when we ever stop talking about the economy, which is going to be going on for a while."

Saturday Night Live will have not only Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin, but Sarah Palin herself.

We'll post video when it's available. I'll update with my thoughts after the segment airs here.

If you're in an earlier time zone and have seen it, feel free to weigh in.

Update: Huffpo has video here. Reuters recap here, AP wrapup here.

Update: My take: The opening was ho-hum, the Weekend Update segment with Amy Poehler's rap was great. I highly recommend watching Amy in that segment. All Palin did was sit there and play the good sport, which was fine by me. The sidelines is where she belongs.

Opening skit below the fold:

Levi Stubbs of the Four Tops died today at age 72. They were my favorite Motown group (along with the Shirelles and the Supremes.) I still remember when they played at my high school and I jumped onstage to hug him at the end.

Formed while its original members were in high school, the Four Tops were one of the most successful groups of the 20th century. They had more than 40 hits on the Billboard pop charts, including their first No. 1 single, “I Can’t Help Myself (Sugar Pie, Honey Bunch)” in 1964.

Here's 1966 and Baby I Need Your Loving: [More..]

UPDATE: Video added. Original post:

John McCain appeared on the David Letterman Show today after making the bad mistake three weeks ago of telling Dave he needed to cancel an appearance so he could rush back to Washington to deal with the financial crisis. McCain actually stayed in New York and gave an interview to Katie Couric.

McCain's explanation: "I screwed up."

[more ...]

Manic Monday with The Bangles. Let's hope the markets continue their rise tomorrow.

This is an open thread.

So this 2005 Powerline quote on Krugman is making the rounds:

It must be depressing to be Paul Krugman. No matter how well the economy performs, Krugman’s bitter vendetta against the Bush administration requires him to hunt for the black lining in a sky full of silvery clouds. With the economy now booming, what can Krugman possibly have to complain about? In today’s column, titled That Hissing Sound, Krugman says there is a housing bubble, and it’s about to burst. . .

I use John Cole's cite because he has the decency to add "[c]onsidering my recent past (at least up until mid 2005), I am not really in a position to get all high and mighty . . ." Indeed. Now, I guess it is bad form to talk about Andrew Sullivan's joining up with Donald Luskin in their anti-Krugman crusade for so many years. It seems to me Andrew would be well served to acknowledge his errors and disavow Luskin, once and for all. He could cite this rant from Luskin on Krugman's Nobel prize:

I scanned Andrew Sullivan's blog to see if he had mentioned Paul Krugman winning the Nobel Prize for Economics. He hasn't. But, after championing Donald Luskin and being, in Luskin's words, a "Krugman Truth Squad senior member," Andrew Sullivan would like you to forget he wrote outrageously stupid things about Paul Krugman (and about everything else.) Now of course, Sully hates Bush, hates Republicans, hates the Right, hates the Clintons (oh wait, he always did that) - so he is now a "Charter Member of the Left blogosphere." I personally won't forget what he wrote about Krugman and other things, even though clearly others are willing to forget (and forgive?)

More . . .

NYTimes:

The American economist Paul R. Krugman won the Nobel economics prize on Monday for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity. Mr. Krugman, 55, a professor at Princeton University in New Jersey and a columnist for The New York Times, formulated a new theory to answer questions about free trade, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said.

“What are the effects of free trade and globalization? What are the driving forces behind worldwide urbanization? Paul Krugman has formulated a new theory to answer these questions,” the academy said in its citation.

In his spare time, Krugman has become the most important progressive opinion writer in the country. Congratulations to Professor Krugman.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Below I called Ross Douthat on clothing the extreme and fallacious view that "Baileyism" (read Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) caused the current economic crisis with the patina of respectability. Douthat's former Atlantic colleague Matt Yglesias points to this McClatchey article that debunks the new Republican/ extreme conservative talking point that Douthat seeks to forward - that it was Baileyism (read Fannie and Freddie) that caused the problem:

As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail. . . . They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

The new line on the failure of Republicanism from the David Brooks right, wrapped in pretty words and "compassion," is well delivered here by Ross Douthat, it is "liberalism's" fault. Reprising the debate between George Bailey and Mr. Potter in It's A Wonderful Life, Douthat blames Baileyism run rampant:

[T]he fact that Baileyism may have gone too far doesn't meant that the Bailey vision isn't worth defending in the long run.

Apparently Potterism (greed leading to income inequality) had nothing to do with it. It was all Mr. Martini's and George Bailey's fault. Douthat uses the pernicious Brooksian device of playing the "reasonable conservative" all the while adopting the divisive and fallcious world view of the most extreme conservatives, in order to attempt to discredit progressivism. During the last 8 years, it toook many on the Left a long while to realize that David Brooks was a mendacious cretin. I wonder how long it will take for them to see the same things in the new Brookses sure to emerge. Hopefully, not as long.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only