Missouri is in

All the electoral votes have been projected.  CNN now says that Sen. John McCain has won Missouri and its 11 electoral votes.

While it does not change anything, what makes this significant is that Missouri’s bellwether status could be over.  It will be voting for the loser for the first time since voting with Adlai Stevenson in 1956.  Also, I hear that if no Republican has won without carrying Ohio, I heard no Democrat has won without carrying Missouri.  Rest assured, the latter doesn’t hold true anymore.

Final Count: Obama: 365, McCain: 173

Obama = A 3rd Clinton term?

There is a lot of talk during the campaign that John McCain is painted as a 3rd Bush term.  Barack Obama promised to talk about change from this.  But does it mean making it a 3rd Clinton term?  His staff appointments have largely been associated with the Clinton administration and they even reach as far as a Clinton herself.

Would this undermine his message of change?  All I can say is that I think he thinks the only thing worse than appointing them is appointing those associated with the Bush administration (except perhaps Bob Gates).

Cutting Lieberman Some Slack

Perhaps one person who has the one of the biggest stakes in this campaign is Joe Lieberman.  When he entered the senate he was a Democrat and stayed a Democrat in name at least until 2006.  He may have voted with Democrats almost all the time except for those few issues that mattered like Iraq.

In 2006, his staunch support for the Iraq war cost him the Democratic nomination which was given to Ned Lamont.  Lieberman ran as in independent and won.  He promised to caucus with the Democrats.  In the 2008 election cycle, he supported John McCain and was a key speaker at the GOP Convention in St. Paul.  As a result of this, Democrats want Lieberman to be punished by being stripped of key committees.  I belive that it wasn’t Lieberman’s support of McCain that angered them as was his criticism of Barack Obama 

To Democrats: who was the person that enabled you to get a majority?  Who was the person that enabled Harry Reid to be the majority leader?  Who was the person that gave you the leadership committees in the Senate? It was Joe Lieberman.  Your majority leader Harry Reid even suggests that Joe even votes more with the party than some of you. 

I don’t think he should be punished merely for supporting the othey guy.  If this was the case then punish Zel Miller, punish the Reagan democrats even punish democrats who supported President Bush’s $700B rescue package.  

Democrats, I know you don’t want the Iraq war but Lieberman is more than just that.  You’ve got to look beyond this single issue which frankly wasn’t even number one, not even close.  Your new president-elect said that he wants to earn the support of those who didn’t vote for him and Lieberman even promises to work with Barack Obama.  You may have the numbers but Lieberman should still have some influence. 

A reality check: republicans will welcome him but sources say that beyond Iraq, there isn’t much that they have in common.  If you want to boot him out let the voters decide in 4 years time.     

Are you going to boot him out of your causes just because of this single issue?  Think about it.  For better or worse, you still have a remote shot at getting a 60-seat majority, would you want to throw him under the bus and regret it later?