I've been reading through this national Q poll, and don't really think the Obama numbers (approval below 50%) mean that much statistically, as his numbers are high among Democrats, low among Republicans, and about tied among Independents-- right where I would expect things to be given the times.

Now, the Afghanistan numbers more interesting as its more in-depth than the usual things. In particular, it tells you exactly how the presumed surge there will be framed, and how it will not be framed.

As a reason why we need US soldiers to die over there, and why we need to drive up the already high deficit:

It won't be argued that its to build a stable democratic government in Afghanistan; or that the US would be successful in such a measure.

It will be argued that its necessary to eliminate the threat from terrorists operating from Afghanistan; but not that the US will be successful in such an effort.

Its just time to decide; and since the only options on the table all involve escalation, failure is not an option considered, but instead presumed. The incremental 'win' (if you are scraping the bottom of the loyalty barrel and really need one) is that a vague notion of an 'exit plan' has emerged from the shadows.

Back to the poll. What is electorally interesting, in regards to backing the surge, isn't that Democrats and Republicans line up opposite, and Independents reside in the middle; but whom among the Democrats is most strongly against the escalation in Afghanistan-- and that has big implications for Obama.

Military households are not in majority support of our being involved in Afghanistan; with 48% in support, and 42% of those family members saying no, the US should not even be involved with Afghanistan right now. 64% of the military households don't believe that the US will succeed in nation-building in Afghanistan, and 55% of the military households doubt the US will succeed in rooting out the terrorists in Afghanistan.

Those numbers reflect a serious problem with military morale in regards to our being involved in Afghanistan.

Moving into the matter of escalation is where I see big political problems emerge. When asked if Obama should send the additional combat troops General Stanley McChrystal has requested, the strongest voice of opposition saying "no" is among Black (73%) and Hispanic (60%) respondents.

And further, when asked how long troops should remain in Afghanistan, those responding 'less than 2 years' overall, is 72% for Democrats; with Black (75%) and Hispanic (61%) numbers just as high.

One thing I've noticed with Obama is that he has always recognized when he's about to lose his credibility of what got him where he is today-- his anti-war stand on invading Iraq.  He never once to my knowledge spoke a specific word about sending more troops into Afghanistan until after the nomination was secured, and then only two bridages. But often, and in much detail, he laid out his plan of deescalation from Iraq.

When John Edwards tried to move to the left of Obama over supplemental funding of the war, Senator Obama, who previously always voted in favor, quickly and predictably turned on a dime and found his voice of opposition. And he quickly covered back afterwards, and led the whip for his own subsequent war supplemental. I don't see anyway possible that Obama is going to change paths right now on Afghanistan-- he built the road and leads the surge. However, I believe he's finally sensing the dangerous path he's chosen with owning the Afghanistan war, and is looking for a way out. The numbers above show he has too.

That is, Obama's real '12 base, the one he cannot lose (and which really doesn't factor into '10 measuring) is the Black and Hispanic vote. He has to get equal those '08 numbers to win the '12 election in places like PA, FL, OH, MI, IN, VA, NC, NV, CO, and NM. He can afford to piss off liberal white anti-war voters, the progressive GLBT voters, and feminist single-women voters, but major policy reason for the massive turnout for Obama of Black and Hispanic voters, especially among the youth, was because of his position of getting the troops out of Iraq. And not for deficit or idealistic reasons, but simply to stop the deaths.

I'm already, after seeing the NJ and VA results, pessimistic that we will see those minority change voters participating in '10. Everyone assumes though, that '12 is another matter, and it will be switched on like a light bulb. The worst case scenario for ending 2010 for Democrats is to lose about 3-5 seats in the Senate, 15-20 in the House. Still in power, no momentum, and bogged down in a Democrat war.

I know there are some that believe that if the economy rebounds, all will be well and Afghanistan won't matter as much. Precisely the opposite of the truth though-- that the reason why Democrats aren't making as loud a noise over Obama leading an escalation in Afghanistan is because the economy and jobs situation is so dismal. There's not a way out of the occupation of Afghanistan other than leaving, so at the least, we have Obama now wondering and asking allowed, 'whats the exit plan' here... and make it 1-2 years max...

Congratulations to Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia on reaching a milestone in becoming the longest-serving lawmaker in US history. Senator Byrd has served 56 years and 320 days in the Congress surpassing the record set by Carl Hayden, the Arizona legislator who served in the House and then the Senate from the time that Arizona gained statehood in 1912 until his retirement in 1969.

Senator Byrd was elected to Congress in 1952 to represent West Virginia's Sixth Congressional District. He was elected to the Senate in 1958 and joined the Senate on January 3, 1959. He became the longest serving Senator in US history back on June 12, 2006 surpassing Strom Thurmond of South Carolina with 17,327 days of service. Senator Byrd's legislative career has now spanned 20,774 days.

November 20th is the Senator's 92nd Birthday. On behalf of the MyDD community, I extend our congratulations and our thanks to Senator Byrd for his service and wish him the happiest of birthdays.

Not just gay marriage, mind you - all marriage. From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships... "It's a silly argument," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Liberty Legal Institute in Plano. Any lawsuit based on the wording of Subsection B, he said, would have "about one chance in a trillion" of being successful.

Oooooops.

Talk about your marriage equality! Practically speaking, Shackelford is probably right, but the wording is the wording, and I almost hope that Radnofsky is correct. I'm of the mind that replacing government marriages with civil unions for all, thus leaving the word and "tradition" of marriage solely to religion, might just be the right way to go. It would be absolutely hilarious if Rick Perry and Co. were the ones to accidentally open that door. Irony is a dish best served cold, with finger sandwiches and wedding cake.

Breaking now from MSNBC, the Senate healthcare reform bill comes in below the President's threshold of $900 billion over 10 years -- at $849 billion, to be precise -- and will reduce the deficit by $127 billion. The bill reportedly will cover 94 percent of Americans. More as we hear it...

Update [2009-11-18 17:17:35 by Jonathan Singer]: The Senate legislation will also reduce the deficit by a whopping $650 billion over the second decade of the bill, in total bringing deficit reduction to $777 billion over 20 years -- a number that will make it significantly more difficult for the Republicans to credibly claim that healthcare reform is in some way imprudent.

I happen to agree with Tina Brown, that if Palinhaters would just get over seeing Sarah Palin as a politician, which she never will be again, and just view her as the celebrity propogandist she is, life will be much better.

Case in point, the original birther-- Andrew Sullivan: "I simply asked her and the campaign to provide easily available proof that she indeed was the biological mother of Trig." If you need more proof: "I'm very sorry to say, it's come to this: can you confirm on the record that Trig Palin is Sarah Palin's biological son?"

I had to LMAO at Wonkette's take on his recent 'timeout' for deep Palin thought.

OK, back to being serious.... my first thought was that The Atlantic has had a pause about becoming the face of this embarrassment, and have (again hypothetically) told Sullivan to reign it in? Palin certainly elevates the right enemies for her own use.

The ironic thing about this turn is that the McCain campaign made a big splash about Obama being a "celebrity" instead of a serious candidate; and look at what he's given the national stage.

Update [2009-11-18 20:49:22 by Jerome Armstrong]: yea, Tom Watson spells it out.

Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling surveys the Senate race in Missouri:

When PPP polled the Missouri Senate race in January Robin Carnahan led by one point. Fast forward ten months and nothing has changed. Carnahan leads Roy Blunt 43-42.

It's a good sign for Carnahan that her status hasn't worsened as things have gone sour in general for the Democratic Party over the course of 2009. That's a product of Carnahan and Blunt being more well known than your typical open seat candidates, particularly because of their family names, and probably also due to Blunt's being symbolic of a Congress that voters don't care for. You're definitely better off being a Jefferson City politician in 2010 than a Washington one.

As you can see, the numbers from PPP fit in quite well with the Pollster.com trend estimate on the race, which has shown Democrat Robin Carnahan leading -- narrowly, but consistently -- for the entire race.

The biggest factor in this race, at least at present, appears not to be the national environment (indeed, despite the supposedly bad environment for the Democrats, the presumptive Democratic nominee Carnahan continues to lead) but rather the unpopularity of the likely GOP nominee, Roy Blunt. At present, Blunt, the onetime House Majority Leader, has a net negative favorability rating, with just 30 percent viewing him positively and 38 percent viewing him negatively. (Carnahan's numbers are net positive, with 40 percent rating her favorably and 36 percent rating her unfavorably.) As long as Blunt's numbers remain this tepid, it's hard to see how he wins this race (even as it will assuredly be close, as are many contested races in the state).

A happy blog birthday to Jonathan (go wish him four more -- at least!), and apologies for a tardy rescue today.  Without further delay, here are the recommended diaries, in the order they were received.  Enjoy.

• There should be no compromise, writes johnny venom in It's more than just healthcare, its also the safety net at stake!
• Spotlight on Community Voices Heard and the Economic Recovery. (The Opportunity Agenda)
• "Failing up" won't cut it for bruh3 in A Wolf Among Sheep: Why Timothy Geithner Must Go.
• Five pillars of protecting our natural resources from 21st Century Democrats' Ken Salazar and the Future of America.
• KS-Gov: Businessman Tom Wiggans will challenge Brownback. (Mike Nellis)
• Restore Fairness asks Are children of immigrants becoming needless statistics in the child welfare system?
• Five critical points that must underlie a new jobs agenda in Seth D Michaels and Trumka: Jobs Crisis--Fix It Now.
• Instead of treaties, writes George57, Make Copenhagen about public education on climate change.
• The Media Consortium's Weekly Audit: Saying 'No' to Corporate America.

Today marks my fourth year as an editor here at MyDD. It has been a fun and educational four years for me. I have written about 3,000 posts (2,990 by my count since coming on as the weekend editor, then full-time editor at the site, plus close to another 1,000 tweets @jonathanhsinger). I don't have anything particularly profound to note on this blogiversary, but upon realizing that today was the day, I thought it worth putting up a post.