THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Ugh: "The U.N. suspended aid shipments in the Gaza Strip on Thursday and the Red Cross restricted its convoys after their trucks came under Israeli fire. The threat of a wider conflict arose when militants in Lebanon fired two rockets into northern Israel."

* Muqtada al-Sadr wants "revenge operations" against U.S. forces in Iraq as punishment for U.S. support for Israel.

* This may be an encouraging development: "Senate leaders won the support of Citigroup, one of the nation's largest banks, for legislation allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of troubled mortgages."

* Senate Democrats aren't thrilled with Obama's tax-cut plan.

* Tom Daschle's confirmation hearings seem to be off to a good start.

* Tim Kaine was officially introduced as the next chairman of the DNC this afternoon. (Obama, in case you're curious, said a number of nice things about Howard Dean at the event.)

* Congress officially tallied the votes from the Electoral College today, making Obama the president-elect.

* Former CIA official John Brennan will be the next White House director of counterterrorism.

* Cass Sunstein, a long-time legal scholar and Obama confidant, will head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

* Cool new subcommittee for Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass).

* Bush gave a speech on education policy today. No one cared.

* SEIU president Andy Stern makes an excellent point about Congress working quickly when it wants to.

* Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) thinks Eric Holder will be confirmed. So do I.

* Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) is picking a fight with Obama over his likely Surgeon General nominee. Since the confirmation is up to the Senate, Conyers may have limited influence on this. (Unfortunately, Conyers' letter to his House colleagues spells Gupta's name wrong, misspelled the "Nobel" prize, gets the address of Conyers' website wrong, and mistakenly claims that Paul Krugman won a Nobel Peace Prize. Oops.)

* Former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) finally gave up his appeals today.

* Monsters.

* And I'm very glad Broward County Mayor Stacy Ritter, eight years later, will finally get a chance to wear that dress.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

WHAT CHENEY CONSIDERS AN 'URBAN LEGEND'.... After spectacular mendacity for eight years, it stands to reason that Dick Cheney would want to go out on a ridiculous note.

Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday that his image has gotten a bad rap in the press and that he is in fact "a warm, lovable sort."

Cheney conceded in an interview with CBS radio that he sometimes expresses himself "rather forcefully toward some of my compatriots, like Pat Leahy from Vermont" but dismissed as a caricature the idea that he is a "Darth Vader-type personality."

"I think all of that's been pretty dramatically overdone," the vice president said. "I'm actually a warm, lovable sort."

Cheney also insisted that his influence within the Bush administration was overstated throughout the past eight years. "The notion that somehow I was pulling strings or making presidential-level decisions. I was not," he said.

"There was never any question about who was in charge. It was George Bush. And that's the way we operated. This whole notion that somehow I exceeded my authority here, was usurping his authority, is simply not true. It's an urban legend, never happened."

I suppose the standards for a "warm, lovable sort" are inherently subjective. I find Cheney's slow, mechanical breathing kind of creepy, and his ability to crush tracheas with his mind unsettling, but that's me.

But the notion of Cheney exceeding his authority as vice president is less open to debate. Satyam Khanna runs down some of The Angler's more obvious abuse-of-power examples.

DEAN DESERVES HIS DUE.... Someone's going to have to explain to me why Howard Dean isn't treated better.

Barack Obama is set to host a press conference with incoming Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine on Thursday in what will ostensibly mark the beginning of a new era for the party and the committee.

Noticeably absent from the affair will be the individual who symbolized the old regime.

Former Gov. Howard Dean is not on the list of attendees for the event, a noticeable nonattendance for someone largely credited with revitalizing the Democratic Party ranks and contributing -- whether politically or through his 50-State Strategy - to major electoral gains.

It is unclear whether Dean's absence reflects a snub or a scheduling conflict.

Look, Dean has earned some genuine respect. He was a successful five-term governor, the chairman of the National Governors Association, and a ground-breaking presidential candidate. He then became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, faced massive institutional resistance, but instituted a wildly-successful national strategy, which helped bring the party to its strongest position in decades. Even his critics, even some Republicans, are giving him his due.

With that in mind, if you're going to have an event to introduce a new DNC chair, the least you can do is have Dean around and sing his praises. Yes, he's traveling today, but a) the event could have been scheduled for a different day; and b) Dean would have rearranged his schedule if asked.

I can kinda sorta understand not asking Dean to lead HHS. And I realize he probably wouldn't have been the ideal Surgeon General. But leaving him out of today's event at the DNC is very hard to understand.

For what it's worth, I don't think Obama is deliberately snubbing Obama. From what I hear, the two get along very well, and Obama has said more than once that Dean's 50-state strategy laid the groundwork for his own bottom-up presidential campaign. For that matter, I can't think of a reason why Tim Kaine would harbor any animosity towards Dean.

So, what explains today's Dean-less event? I'm at a loss.

IS SHE STILL AROUND?.... Do you know what America really needs right now? An entirely new round of nonsense from Sarah Palin.

Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) believes Caroline Kennedy is getting softer press treatment in her pursuit of the New York Senate seat than Palin did as the GOP vice presidential nominee because of Kennedy's social class.

"I've been interested to see how Caroline Kennedy will be handled and if she will be handled with kid gloves or if she will be under such a microscope," Palin told conservative filmmaker John Ziegler during an interview Monday for his upcoming documentary film, "How Obama Got Elected." Excerpts from the interview were posted on YouTube Wednesday evening.

"It's going to be interesting to see how that plays out and I think that as we watch that we will perhaps be able to prove that there is a class issue here also that was such a factor in the scrutiny of my candidacy versus, say, the scrutiny of what her candidacy may be."

Now, as far as I can tell, Caroline Kennedy hasn't enjoyed especially good press at all since she announced her desire to serve in the Senate. The New York Times, in particular, published a very unflattering piece; reporters have been openly mocking Kennedy's speaking style ("you know") and questioning her credentials; and the response to her "candidacy" from the blogs has been widely negative.

But that's not the only reason Palin's whining is so odd. Kennedy probably won't receive anywhere near the national media scrutiny Palin received, but that's because Kennedy wants to be one of 100 senators, serving one state, while Palin inexplicably thought she should be one heartbeat from leading the free world. The scrutiny should be different -- candidates for statewide office and national office are playing in different leagues.

For that matter, this notion that Palin was widely ridiculed because of "class" is crazy. The governor may find it embarrassing, but she's upper-middle-class. Playing the victim, and suggesting the media is picking on her because she isn't wealthy is absurd.

But Palin wasn't done, telling John Ziegler (remember him?) that Katie Couric and Tina Fey have been "capitalizing on" and "exploiting" her, that her embarrassing interviews during the campaign had been "sliced" together, and that she thinks MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is "evil."

Remember, she was nearly the vice president of the United States.

ONE STEP CLOSER TO BLAGOJEVICH IMPEACHMENT.... State lawmakers in Illinois tasked a special investigative committee to explore possible impeachment charges against Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D). Today, the panel came back with a recommendation for the legislature.

"The citizens of this state must have confidence that their governor will faithfully serve the people and put their interests before his own. It is with profound regret that the committee finds that our current governor has not done so," says the 69-page document posted by Democratic and Republican members on the House Web site.

"For all the reasons stated in this report and the evidence contained in the record before the committee, the special investigative committee for the Illinois House of Representatives, 95th General Assembly, finds that the totality of the evidence warrants the impeachment of the governor for cause," the draft report concludes.

The language in the 69-page draft report reflects the sentiments of the 21 members on the House panel, who began looking into impeachment proceedings against the governor on Dec. 16 -- a week after Blagojevich was arrested at his North Side home on federal criminal charges of allegedly using the governor's office for personal and political gain.

The litany of transgressions is not brief. As the Tribune noted, the draft report (pdf) points to, among other things, Blagojevich "expanding health care without legislative approval, spending state money on useless flu vaccines, refusing to release federal subpoenas and other government information to the public, widespread hiring abuses and pay-to-play activities in which big contributors often wound up with hefty state contracts." And then it gets into the charges raised by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

At this point, an impeachment committee will vote on the report, possibly as early as today, leading to an impeachment vote in the Illinois House, which could come before close of business tomorrow. If approved, the matter would go the state Senate, which would vote on whether to "convict" the governor and remove him from office.

Of course, with former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris (D) likely to fill the state's U.S. Senate vacancy "very shortly," there's less of a sense of urgency.

THE RIGHT TARGETS FDR.... In keeping with the recent trend, Fox News personality Brit Hume became the latest in a series of conservatives to demonstrate bizarre confusion about the Great Depression. Hume insisted this morning that "the New Deal -- everybody agrees, I think, on both sides of the spectrum now, that the New Deal failed." He added, "President [Franklin] Roosevelt waged what could only be called a jihad against private enterprise."

The right has been repeating similar nonsense for a couple of months now. It's demonstrably ridiculous, but that's not stopping them.

David Sirota has written a couple of excellent items lately, responding to the absurd Republican talking points related to FDR and the Great Depression, but yesterday, to his credit, MSNBC's David Shuster did an entire segment on the patently false conservative argument.

We don't often see this kind of fact-checking segment on national television, so kudos to Shuster and MSNBC.

(For more background on this, also note this Paul Krugman column from November, which notes the "intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse.")

Why does the right bother? It's hard to say for sure, but there are probably a few aspects to this. First, FDR was a Democrat, addressing a devastating economic crisis handed to him by a failed Republican president. This, of course, sets up Obama as Roosevelt, which the GOP would like to avoid.

Second, the conservative ideology demands that FDR's approach to the Great Depression was fundamentally flawed, because it was premised on ideas like increased spending, public works, Social Security, and stronger unions.

It's easy to mock Fox News and the rest of the Republicans for pushing obvious nonsense, but I'm afraid the economic conditions are so dire, the right's ridiculous sense of history is actually kind of dangerous. Americans, I hope, know better, but I'd feel a whole lot better if there wasn't an organized campaign from conservatives trying to convince Americans to reject the lifesaver while the nation drowns.

EXITING STAGE RIGHT.... With a caucus down to just 41 members, Senate Republicans need to keep retirements to a minimum in order to conserve campaign resources and maximize likely victories.

And yet, a surprising number are already exiting stage right.

Sen. Kit Bond, the senior Republican from Missouri who sits on powerful Senate committees, announced Thursday that he will not run for reelection in 2010, giving Democrats a shot to pick up a seat in a state that has emerged as a major battleground. [...]

Missouri has emerged as a battleground state, after Claire McCaskill (D) defeated incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Talent in 2006 and Barack Obama lost the state by less than 5,000 votes to John McCain in the 2008 elections. And Missouri voters just elected Jay Nixon, a Democrat, as their next governor, signaling that Bond could face a tough challenge if he ran for a fifth term.

Perhaps most notably, Bond is the third incumbent to announce their retirement in advance of the 2010 cycle, following Mel Martinez (Florida) and Sam Brownback (Kansas), while Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas) is planning a gubernatorial campaign that will create a fourth Republican open-seat contest. At least three of these four were likely shoo-ins for re-election.

What's more, with four more Republican incumbents likely to face major challenges next year -- Burr in North Carolina, Gregg in New Hampshire, Specter in Pennsylvania, and Voinovich in Ohio -- Bond's announcement makes the 2010 cycle that much more difficult for the GOP.

As for Missouri, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and state Attorney General Chris Koster are two major Democratic candidates to keep an eye on, while among Republicans, Rep. Roy Blunt is reportedly eyeing the race, as is former Sen. Jim Talent, who lost his Senate seat in 2006 to Claire McCaskill.

STIMULUS SPEECH.... It's not especially common for presidents-elect to give major policy addresses two weeks before Inauguration Day, but watching Barack Obama's speech in northern Virginia this morning, we were reminded that these are not ordinary times.

Watching the speech, it seemed to have a State-of-the-Union-like feel. Obama was addressing the public, but he also went out of his way to repeatedly urge Congress to deliver an economic rescue package immediately. Obama told lawmakers to resist the urge to pack earmarks into the bill, and repeatedly pressed members to get to work: "I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible..."; "Congress [must] act without delay..."; "I'm asking Congress to work with me and my team day and night, on weekends if necessary, to get the plan passed in the next few weeks."

On a related note, Obama also stressed the importance of speed. He described a crisis that is so severe, that every day of delay makes matters worse. Obama talked about the need for "dramatic action as soon as possible," and warned of the dire consequences of inaction.

"I know the scale of this plan is unprecedented," Obama said, "but so is the severity of our situation. We have already tried the wait-and-see approach to our problems, and it is the same approach that helped lead us to this day of reckoning. That is why the time has come to build a 21st century economy in which hard work and responsibility are once again rewarded." To that end, Obama described an ambitious vision on energy, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and closing loopholes that "allow Wall Street wrongdoers to slip through regulatory cracks."

But here's the part of the speech that, at least politically, was the most important:

"It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy -- where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.

"That is why we need to act boldly and act now to reverse these cycles. That's why we need to put money in the pockets of the American people, create new jobs, and invest in our future. That's why we need to re-start the flow of credit and restore the rules of the road that will ensure a crisis like this never happens again."

Reagan told us that government "is the problem." Clinton told us the "era of big government is over." And Obama wants America to know that government is the "only" institution that's capable of addressing an economic crisis of this severity.

For all of the talk in recent weeks about the president-elect's ideology and partisan fealty, this speech was a reminder of the importance of government activism in a time of overwhelming challenges. And that, at its core, is an inescapably liberal message.

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Norm Coleman has, of course, filed a last-gasp lawsuit challenging his defeat in Minnesota. Eric Kleefeld went through the filing and came away unimpressed.

* Alex Sink, Florida's popular Chief Financial Officer, is moving closer to a 2010 campaign for U.S. Senate, running for the seat Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) is giving up.

* Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer was rumored to be a late entrant in the race to be the next chairman of the RNC, but instead, he endorsed former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele yesterday.

* On a related note, after this week's embarrassing forum, the six candidates vying to lead the Republican National Committee have suddenly become camera shy.

* Some are already accusing Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe of being a (ahem) carpetbagger. He addressed the issue yesterday: "I was born in Syracuse, New York. I am proud of where I was born," McAuliffe said. "But I am a Virginian.... If you are looking for someone who was born here in Virginia, I agree Creigh Deeds is your man... I honestly believe people want to know who can help them. They don't really care where you were born."

* Speaking of Virginia, former Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) will be the new head of the Main Street Partnership, a group of moderates trying to drag the Republican Party away from the far-right cliff.

* Colorado, in a national first, will have African-American lawmakers lead both the state House and state Senate. Both Speaker of the House Terrance Carroll and Senate President Peter Groff are Democrats.

FAILURE QUANTIFIED.... MSNBC ran an interesting "Then and Now" feature yesterday, comparing the current state of various benchmarks to where they were when Bush took office (via Ezra). It's worth taking a look at, but it's only part of the picture. Some of the more notable numbers:

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Then: 4.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001)
Now: 6.7% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2008)

DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE
Then: 10,587 (close of Friday, Jan. 19, 2001)
Now: 9,015 (close of Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2009)

CONSUMER CONFIDENCE (1985=100)
Then: 115.7 (Conference Board, January 2001)
Now: 38.0, which is an all-time low (Conference Board, December 2008)

FAMILIES LIVING IN POVERTY
Then: 6.4 million (Census numbers for 2000)
Now: 7.6 million (Census numbers for 2007 -- most recent numbers available)

AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE
Then: 39.8 million (Census numbers for 2000)
Now: 45.7 million (Census numbers for 2007 -- most recent available)

U.S. BUDGET
Then: +236.2 billion (2000, Congressional Budget Office)
Now: -$1.2 trillion (projected figure for 2009, Congressional Budget Office)

Of course, some of the metrics, most notably the Dow, may look even worse when Bush officially leaves office. He still has 11 days.

But as painful as it is to see, as Ezra put it, "the good numbers go down and the bad numbers go up," I'd just add that the depressing statistics can capture only so much.

It's hard to quantify, for example, the devastating effects of Bush's foreign policy, his assaults on constitutional norms, his far-right judicial appointees, his environmental negligence, his politicization of the entire executive branch, etc.

The numbers, to be sure, are bleak. But I'm afraid Bush's failures exceed statistical evaluation.

REPUBLICANS, BURRIS, AND BLAGO.... It's likely that the initial response from Senate Democrats to the Roland Burris appointment was driven, at least in part, by appearances. Reid & Co. didn't want Republicans to be able to attack them as tolerant of corruption, so Dems took a hard line.

Now, of course, that hard line is giving way to Burris' likely success in joining the Senate. And what do Republicans have to say about this? Not a whole lot.

Jon Kyl, last week, announced his belief that Burris' appointment was apparently legal and should be accepted by the Senate. Roll Call reports today that Republicans don't really have any interest at all in blocking Burris, and even National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) said he's "inclined to seat him."

I mention this for two reasons. One, Burris joining the Senate now appears to be a near-certainty. And two, because Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa, who said yesterday that Burris has "got a perfect right to have that seat," pivoted to an absurd Blagojevich-related attack against Eric Holder, Barack Obama's Attorney General nominee.

"[Eric Holder] was a counsel or at least Governor Blagojevich had sought to have him involved with something with race tracks in Illinois and casinos, I think. And so we're trying to get freedom of information on that because we need to know what the relationship is with Governor Blagojevich. And I don't say that in denigrating in any way except Governor Blagojevich's recent troubles raises questions with anybody that's had a relationship with him.... [I]t's not going to be smooth sailing."

In reality, Blagojevich tried to hire Holder for some independent state review a few years back. The governor screwed up the process, Holder went back to D.C, and the two had no further connection. This, according to Grassley, should detract from Holder's nomination.

So, let's review. If Blagojevich picks an official to fill a Senate vacancy that he was trying to sell, Chuck Grassley thinks that official is fine. If Blagojevich unsuccessfully tried to hire a lawyer for a state review, this constitutes a "relationship," which "raises questions."

Obama and the Democratic leadership on the Hill seem to genuinely believe they can work cooperatively with congressional Republicans. I have a hunch Republicans aren't going to make this easy.

A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST.... You've got to be kidding.

Republicans introduced a bill Wednesday that would bar Congress, President-elect Barack Obama and federal media regulators from bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, which they said would all but eliminate the talk-radio industry. [...]

"Freedom of speech is under attack in this country," said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican and co-sponsor of the Broadcaster Freedom Act. "I am just committing today to use every rule, every tactic that we have at our disposal to keep the Fairness Doctrine from moving in Congress or to overrule it if it is implemented by the FCC." [...]

"Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine today would amount to government control over political views expressed on the airwaves," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and a former broadcaster.

Joining Mr. Pence and Mr. DeMint were Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma and Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon.

These guys aren't pushing a bill to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine, because it's already gone. They're pushing a bill to prevent anyone from trying to bring it back -- despite the fact that there is no meaningful effort to do so. TNR's Marin Cogan recently wrote a great piece, noting that she couldn't find anyone on the left who was serious about reinstating the policy. Cogan explained, "The prospect of being in the opposition often brings out the worst in conservatives -- paranoia and self-pity."

And as Matt Yglesias recent put it, "I've never heard of anything like the current conservative mania for blocking a particular legislative provision that nobody is trying to enact."

As for the Democratic response to yesterday's bizarre press conference, a spokesperson for the Senate Majority Leader said, "We have enough real problems facing this country that we don't need to invent ones that don't exist."

DEFINE 'SKEPTICISM'.... The Politico reports this morning that policy makers in D.C. are facing "a skeptical public" when it comes to selling an ambitious economic recovery plan.

Obama comes to power ... after a period of extraordinary intervention already by Treasury and the Federal Reserve. The results of that activity have been mixed. And while most economists agree that the country is better off for having acted, the huge costs have also fed skepticism among the public.

"There's a sense out there that we keep throwing more and more money at the problem," pollster Neil Newhouse told Politico. "There's a ton of skepticism out there whether this will make a difference."

The Politico also reports this morning that most of the public is already convinced that we need an ambitious economic recovery plan.

By a large majority, voters favor President-elect Barack Obama's wide-ranging policy prescriptions to aid the faltering economy, according to a new Politico/Allstate poll.

The survey of 1,007 registered voters conducted Dec. 27-29 showed that 79 percent of respondents favored Obama's plan. The president-elect is advocating a $775 billion stimulus that includes a major investment in infrastructure projects and alternative energy as well as middle-class tax cuts, job training and health care reform.

When eight in 10 Americans already support Obama's approach to improving the economy, it doesn't sound like he should be too terribly concerned about "a skeptical public."

Note to the president-elect: the electorate wants you to be bold. Don't hold back.

NO SEN. MATTHEWS.... We may never know for sure whether it was a sincere interest or an elaborate negotiating ploy, but either way, MSNBC's Chris Matthews is not running for the Senate next year in Pennsylvania. He reportedly told his "Hardball" staff yesterday in a production meeting that he's staying where he is.

I suspect many Democrats are breathing a sigh of relief, and not just among the netroots, where Matthews is exceedingly unpopular. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) recently gushed about a possible Matthews bid, calling the MSNBC host the "strongest Democratic candidate without any doubt," but that was a minority viewpoint.

In fact, it's obviously just speculation, but if Matthews had run, I think he probably would have done rather poorly. A quick review of, say, his "greatest hits" from Media Matters shows a record that would have been tough to overcome. Matthews' interest in the race was probably genuine, but he was under the mistaken impression that his celebrity status would propel him to the front of the pack.

With Matthews out, who's likely to seek the party nod? Specter is considered vulnerable, so expect a sizable Democratic field. A month ago, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) dipped his toe in the water, hinting that he's likely to run, and Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) has made similar overtures. State Rep. Josh Shapiro (D), considered a rising star in Pennsylvania, is reportedly mulling the race, and is worth keeping an eye on.

Before facing a Democratic opponent, of course, Specter will likely have to survive another Republican primary, including a possible rematch against former representative and far-right activist Pat Toomey.

As for Matthews, MSNBC will probably pay him handsomely well into the future. As a result, progressive bloggers everywhere will continue to mock his odd on-air comments, and breathe a sigh of relief that he isn't a Democratic candidate. Atrios recently said, "I've long been waiting for an opportunity to vote for a Republican to establish my bipartisan cred, and while I never thought Arlen Specter would be the guy, if Tweety's his opponent it'll probably happen."

Now, it won't come to that.

SPECTER'S DELICATE SENSIBILITIES.... Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-Pa.) angry crusade against Eric Holder's A.G. nomination seems petty, pointless, and counter-productive. Facing a difficult re-election campaign next year in a "blue" state Obama won by double digits, Specter may even be undermining his career with his odd tactics.

So, why is he bothering? Apparently, because the president-elect hurt his feelings by not calling him first.

Key members of the Senate Intelligence Committee complained this week that they had no advance notice of President-elect Barack Obama's choice to lead the Central Intelligence Agency. Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, says Obama was equally tight-lipped with him about nominees for the Department of Justice.

Specter said in prepared remarks Tuesday that Obama did not consult with him before choosing Eric Holder Jr. to be attorney general, and he tells Legal Times that Obama also did not consult with him or notify him before announcing four other Justice Department nominees Monday.

"History demonstrates that presidents who seek the advice of members of the Senate prior to submitting a nomination frequently see their nominees confirmed more quickly and with less controversy than those who do not," Specter (R-Pa.) said.... "In contrast, on the nomination of Mr. Holder, President-elect Obama chose not to seek my advice or even to give me advance notice in my capacity as Ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, which is his prerogative."

Specter added yesterday, "You ought to seek the ranking member's advice."

It's hard to imagine a long-time senator like Specter being so small, but it's equally hard to understand why he'd admit it. All of this starts to sound a bit like Newt Gingrich telling reporters he shut down the government because Bill Clinton made him use the back exit on Air Force One.

Specter wants to punish Holder because Obama didn't seek his "advice"? Please.