Former Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore has given an interview to the UK Guardian in which he expresses his optimism that the US will enact meaningful climate legislation.

He notes that "I was in China two days ago, and the premier of China asked me, in essence, why I'm optimistic that the Senate will pass legislation when the conventional wisdom says otherwise. And the answer is that I have been a part of conversations between Democrats and Republicans that give me a very different view from what the consensus is in the journalistic community." Gore then cites the recent op-ed by Democratic Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Senator Graham of South Carolina in the New York Times as evidence of wide bi-partisan support for climate legislation. He then added that "There are other surprises like that in store."

Even so, the former Vice President expects a hardening tone  from climate change deniers. He attributes this to "the sunset phenomenon, where there's a spectacle just before the subsiding": as the remaining climate change doubters and vested interests begin to realise that the game is up, he suggests, they're bound to make one last stand. "This self-interest on the part of some of the carbon polluters - who are becoming a bit intense in their efforts - reflects their awareness that public opinion has been shifting very significantly," he says. "When I say 'they', I don't mean to indict all of them, because the business community is now very much split... but that realisation has produced a desire on the part of some of these carbon polluters to dig in their heels."

Asked about the recent mass protests and civil disobedience for the climate across the world, Gore responded, "Civil disobedience has an honourable history, and when the urgency and moral clarity cross a certain threshold, then I think that civil disobedience is quite understandable, and it has a role to play. And I expect that it will increase, no question about it."

The article is strongly recommended.

Per the San Jose Mercury News:

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday she will base a decision on whether to run for California governor next year largely on the solutions the announced candidates put forward to deal with the state's fiscal problems.

Polls indicate she would be a heavy favorite if she chooses to run. Feinstein told The Associated Press in a brief interview that she is grateful for that support, but it will not be a significant factor in her decision.

"What does affect it is watching to see what precise programs are put forward by various candidates to handle what is a very serious structural budget deficit in this state," Feinstein said. "It's of major consequence and California is in considerable distress, and there have to be reforms."

Feinstein said she would take a close look at candidates' dedication to enacting their proposals as well as their ability to develop enough support to enact the changes.
The state's Department of Finance is anticipating a $7.4-billion deficit in 2010-11, even after lawmakers enacted deep budget cuts this past summer. Those cuts were so hard to come by that the state had to issue IOUs to continue operating.

Republicans have three candidates running for governor: Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman and former congressman Tom Campbell.

Democrats have no announced candidate so far, though Attorney General Jerry Brown has formed an exploratory committee.

Two thoughts cross my mind. One, she and Jerry Brown are close friends. I suspect that if he runs, she won't. Two, she is at the pinnacle of her Senate career and the chair of the Intelligence Committee. If that's not her dream job, I don't know what is.

We're still waiting for the video to be clipped, but folks watching MSNBC earlier this hour saw what will undoubtedly be an instant Youtube classic: Markos hitting Tom Tancredo so hard in response to Tancredo's attacks on the Veterans Affairs department that Tancredo scampered off set. Here's what Markos had to say that set Tancredo into flight:

"Tom, I'm a veteran. I did not get a deferment because I was too depressed to fight in... Vietnam."

The video...

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its October 2009 unemployment report. The numbers were worse than expected.

The unemployment rate rose from 9.8 to 10.2 percent in October, and nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline (-190,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The largest job losses over the month were in construction, manufacturing, and retail trade.

Most analysts had expected the unemployment rate remain just shy of 10%, instead it shot past that barrier reaching a 26 year high. In October, the number of unemployed persons increased by 558,000 to 15.7 million. The unemployment rate rose by 0.4 percentage point to 10.2 percent, the highest rate since April 1983. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has risen by 8.2 million, and the unemployment rate has grown by 5.3 percentage points. Factory payrolls dropped by the most in four months, and the average workweek held at a record low.

Since President Obama took office in January, the economy has lost 3.49 million jobs. Overall the US economy has lost 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, when the unemployment rate stood at 4.9 percent.

On the positive side, the number of temporary workers increased by 44,000 in October, adding to gains in the previous two months. This suggests that that businesses have squeezed as much production as they can out of their existing workforces and thus bring in temporary workers to fulfill orders. On the other hand, businesses seem reluctant to make permanent hiring decisions.

As the Wall Street Journal reported last week, companies are postponing major investments in either capital equipment or labor and instead holding more cash reserves. In the second quarter that ended in June, the 500 largest nonfinancial U.S. firms, by total assets, held about $994 billion in cash and short-term investments, or 9.8% of their assets, according to the Wall Street Journal's analysis of corporate filings. That is up from $846 billion, or 7.9% of assets, a year earlier. In the third quarter quarter that ended in October, cash assets increased to 11.1% of total assets, from 10.1% in the second quarter. The good news is that companies have cash to invest; the bad news is that so far companies don't seem to have a better use of cash other than to pay down debt. Translation, orders remain soft.

Though the right wing blogs have tried to write an apocryphal history of the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district, the fact is that Democrat Bill Owens ran on a platform that included support for healthcare reform and won. Now Owens, freshly sworn in as a United States Congressman, is reiterating his support for healthcare reform.

Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) can be counted on as a "yes" in this weekend's expected vote on the House Democrats' health care bill, announcing his support in a press release.

"This legislation will reform the insurance industry and provide increased access to affordable healthcare without taxing healthcare benefits, cutting Medicare benefits or raising taxes on the middle class, and that is exactly the direction we need to go," said Owens. "There are still changes I would like to make, including raising the payroll exemption for small businesses, but like I said last week, there is a fundamental need for reform and we must act with a sense of urgency."

With Owens' support, as well as that of California's new Congressman John Garamendi (whose office confirmed to me this afternoon his intention to vote in favor of healthcare reform), Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now two votes closer to the 218 required to get H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, through the House and on to the Senate. Still waiting to hear, though, whether Michael Barone or anyone else is willing to take me up on my bet that Pelosi will get her 218...

Some in Congress seem to be suggesting that healthcare reform should be scrapped, or seriously curtailed, do to the poor state of the economy and the jobs market. The American people disagree.

Nearly six in ten Americans want Congress to continue working on health care reform bills that have been passed through various committees, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-nine percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say lawmakers should continue working on the legislation, a rise of 6 points since August. But only a quarter say those bills should be passed pretty much as is, with a third suggesting that Congress should make major changes. The poll also indicates that one in four say lawmakers should start from scratch and 15 percent want Congress to stop all work on health care reform.

The CNN poll also finds that a majority of Americans, 55 percent, support the public option.

Coming in the wake of an election day that can be read as hostile to the current Democratic agenda (even as Democrats swept the two races actually involving the Democratic agenda on Capitol hill, including one in a congressional district much of which has not sent a Democrat to Congress in more than 150 years) and on the eve of the historic House vote on healthcare reform, these numbers could strengthen the hands of those whipping for 218 in the Democratic leadership. Certainly little in these numbers would lead me to want to renege on my offer to wager on the results of this weekend's healthcare vote in the House (the benefits of which would go to charity). But we'll have to wait and see.

Research 2000, polling for Daily Kos, answers in the affirmative, finding that while the Democrats lead overall on the generic congressional ballot -- which the aggregate of all polling agrees with -- the Republicans lead by a wide margin (49 percent to 20 percent) in the South.

Ipsos released its own polling yesterday, sponsored by McClatchy newspapers, which also showed the Democrats holding a lead on the national ballot (48 percent to 41 percent overall). Wondering whether the trend picked up in Research 2000 polling held firm across other surveys, I reached out to Ipsos to see if I could get a regional breakdown of their 2010 results. They obliged (and thanks to Ipsos for doing so):

First things first, it's important to note that the margin of error for the unweighted subsamples is higher than it is for the poll overall. Due to the size of these groups, the margin of error ranges from plus or minus 5 percentage points to plus or minus 7 percentage points.

That said, it's interesting to note that Ipsos does not find the same regional discrepancies on the 2010 ballot question as does Research 2000. In fact, where Research 2000 found a wide lead for the Republicans in the South, Ipsos actually sees a Democratic lead. (Go figure.)

Is one right and the other wrong? I don't think this is exactly the right question, at least not now, one year out from election day. What I do think, though, is that the differences between these results compel further analysis over the coming months, analysis that can only be undertaken if pollsters (a) are surveying sufficient numbers of people so that margins of error are not too large, and (b) are releasing regional breakdowns of their generic congressional ballot questions so that even if margins of error for smaller subgroups are larger, in the aggregate across polls they can nevertheless inform us about the regional coalitions that will help decide the make up of the next Congress.

This Wednesday former Hewlett-Packard CEO and John McCain presidential adviser Carly Fiorina announced her candidacy for US Senate. Her candidacy, Fiorina hopes, will have her take on longtime and proud liberal California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer in the conservative Orange County. While her campaign kicked off with a day-time talk show looking logo and a mea culpa for her lack of voting in California elections (she's missed 75 percent of all votes since 2000, including gubernatorial and presidential elections), Fiorina's campaign kickoff lacked any sort of excitement according to LA Times columnist Michael Hiltznik. However before the very wealthy businesswoman takes on Boxer in the general election in November 2010, she'll have to win the Republican primary in June of 2010. But she won't. She won't lose the primary because of a lackluster launch or a fancy logo or an interesting life story as a female CEO (even though her career as CEO is spotty at best) or a survivor of breast cancer, the problem is Fiorina's politics.

While she announced that she has signed a pledge to never vote for a tax increase, her politics don't fall far right enough for what is remaining of the California Republican party. While Fiorina pledges to be tough on taxes, she falls in line with the John McCain wing of the Republican Party and McCain only received 37 percent of the statewide vote in 2008.

So that leaves the question, what Republican Party leaders can come to California to stump for Fiorina and get national donations? From the 2008 election results, John McCain isn't that person. From his abysmal approval ratings, "moderate" Republican Governor Schwarzenegger won't help on the stump for Fiorina. What about Sarah Palin? She drew huge crowds when she stumped for Vice President in Los Angeles in 2008. Fiorina won't get the Palin wing of the GOP to endorse her because super conservative Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore has also announced his candidacy for Senate. And Palin specifically won't stump for Fiorina after Fiorina famously said during an interview that Palin couldn't be a CEO of a large company. That leaves Megan McCain as the only Republican popular enough in California to stump for Fiorina.