Tom Foreman | BIO
AC360° Correspondent

The Internet is overflowing with holiday gift books for your politically savvy friends; to be unwrapped, placed prominently on the coffee table, and given to the school book drive two months later when your pals realize they are not really that interested in a biography of Barry Goldwater.

The problem is clear: For all the books out there, the ones that we actually want to read were simply not penned. So herewith I present the ten best books of the year that should have been written:

1.  Sarah Palin, Levi’s on the Floor!: When a harried ex-governor is called away from her busy schedule of debunking climate change by the hijinks of her almost son-in-law, hilarity prevails! And when he poses for Playgirl, it’s not just the planet that heats up.

2.  Barack Obama, Dreams of My Campaign: In beautifully crafted prose, the Commander in Chief explains why certain unforeseen situations, the difficulty of pulling people together, and the economy have made fulfilling his campaign pledges…uh…what was I saying?

3.  Hillary Clinton, I Told You So: The much-anticipated answer to Dreams of My Campaign.

4.  Joe Lieberman, What, Me Worry?: The Connecticut independent takes a madcap look at his life as the Alfred E. Newman of the Senate. The chapter on holding health care hostage will leave you laughing so hard, you’ll forget your chronic illness and crushing medical bills.

5.  Timothy Geithner, Reforming Wall Street: Fiction.

6.  Tareq and Michaele Salahi, Our Best Friend, Barack Obama: An insider’s look at the White House from two people who were given unprecedented access to every corner. Well, at least that’s what they said.

7.  Meghan McCain, Post It!: Senator John McCain’s daughter shares her innermost thoughts and provocative pictures. It’s like her Facebook page, only on paper.

8.  John Boehner, Just Say No: Anyone can make the government do things; but making it do nothing while keeping your tan is an art.

9.  Ralph Nadar, I’m Still Alive: SWM seeks campaign for long walks, snuggling.

10.  And while this one is not political, it surely should have been written. Tiger Woods, Excuse Me, Miss, but I Think That’s My Putter.

Happy shopping.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste today urged President Barack Obama to veto the $446.8 billion omnibus spending bill. The bill, H.R. 3288, passed the House of Representatives on December 10, 2009 and the Senate on December 13, 2009. The omnibus is an amalgamation of six of the seven remaining fiscal year (FY) 2010 spending bills: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development; Commerce, Justice, Science; Labor/Health and Human Services, and Education; State and Foreign Operations; Financial Services and General Government, and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs. The omnibus appropriations bill contains thousands of earmarks worth billions of dollars and an average 12% increase in the departments and agencies funded in the six appropriations bills.

Here are some of the earmarks in the bill:

TRANSPORTATION-EDI (Economic Development Initiative)
• $1,000,000 by Senate appropriator Judd Gregg for repairs, restoration
and modernization of a theatre and construction of an additional space at the Portsmouth Music Hall
• $400,000 by House appropriator Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) for restoration
and renovation of the historic Ritz Theatre
• $400,000 by Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) for construction and renovation
for safety improvements at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden
• $350,000 by House appropriator Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) and Rep. Robert
Brady (D-Pa.) for renovation of the Uptown Theatre
• $250,000 by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) for construction of the Monroe
County Farmer’s Market
• $250,000 by Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) for building renovation of the
Murphy Theatre
• $194,000 by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) for completion of the
historic restoration project at the Historic Slater Mill
• $150,000 by House appropriator Jose Serrano for Safe Harbors of the
Hudson, Inc., for renovation and buildout of the Pregones Theatre
• $100,000 by Rep. House appropriator Calvert (R-Calif.) for construction
on the Santa Ana River Trail

FINANCIAL SERVICES-SBA
• $200,000 by House appropriator Marion Berry (D-Ark.) for the Arkansas
Commercial Driver Training Institute at Arkansas State University
• $150,000 by House appropriator James Moran (D-Va.) and Eleanor Holmes
Norton (D-D.C.) for education programs and exhibitions at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C.
• $134,000 by House appropriator Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.) for Montana
Growth Through Trade at the Montana World Trade Center
• $100,000 by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Rep. Henry Brown (R-S.C.)
for the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center

LABOR/HHS
• $500,000 by Senate appropriator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Charles Grassley
(R-Iowa) for exhibits relating to the Mississippi River at the National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium in Dubuque
• $200,000 by Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran
(R-Miss.) for the Washington National Opera for set design, installation, and performing arts at libraries and schools
• $150,000 by Louis McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y.) for exhibits and
interactive displays at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site Foundation in Buffalo

Dana Bash and Ted Barrett
CNN Capitol Hill Team

Two senior Democratic sources tell CNN senate Democrats are headed towards dropping the compromise idea to allow 55 to 64 year-olds to buy into Medicare because of opposition from Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman.

"It’s what the White House wants and there aren’t many other options that allow us to finish by Christmas," said one source.

Senate Democrats had an emergency meeting Monday night to discuss this issue, which threatens to derail health care.

Although a final decision was not made at Monday night’s meeting, a second Democratic source said it’s likely a final decision could be made at meeting Tuesday of all Democrats with the President at the White House.

“I think there is a fundamental understanding of the direction we’re going in, “said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.

Before the meeting, liberal senators Tom Harkin of Iowa and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia indicated that the so-called Medicare buy-in would likely be dropped, and while they didn’t like that, they suggested they would support a health care bill anyway.

"If he (Lieberman) is absolutely opposed to it, it looks like we won't have it," said Harkin.

"There is still good stuff in this bill for changing the paradigm of health care in America," he said.

“Democracy isn’t written to say that you get exactly a perfect system, “ said Rockefeller. “I mean, we are where we are. That’s the ultimate bottom line.”

The Medicare buy-in concept was intended to appease liberals upset that Democratic leaders were dropping a public option.

But that ran into a wall Sunday when Lieberman said he would support a GOP filibuster to block health care if the Medicare provision was in the bill.

AC360°

President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday with much discussion of war and the limits of nonviolence.

But he also praised the peacemakers of the past and said the world can and should still strive for peace.

The following is a transcript of Obama's acceptance speech:

Your majesties, your royal highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations - that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize - Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela - my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women - some known, some obscure to all but those they help - to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the commander in chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty-three other countries - including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict - filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease - the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations - total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations - an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize - America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago - "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence. I know there is nothing weak - nothing passive - nothing naive - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another - that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths - that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations - strong and weak alike - must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I - like any head of state - reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates - and weakens - those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait - a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention - no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries - and other friends and allies - demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali - we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant - the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior - for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure - and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President [Dmitry] Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma - there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point - the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists - a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests - nor the world's - are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung San Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable - and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights - it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people - or nations educate their children and care for the sick - is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action - it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more - and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities - their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint - no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith - for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached - their faith in human progress - must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith - if we dismiss it as silly or naive; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace - then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protester awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that - for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Keep Reading...

Tom Foreman | BIO
AC360° Correspondent

As a journalist, I’m used to being pushed around in the polls. It’s OK. I know you don’t like us much. You have doubts about the media’s integrity, trustworthiness, and honesty, and frankly there are times when I do too; when I want to say, “Move over. Make some room on that pew for me.”

Yet the good folks at Gallup have given my profession an early holiday gift that is lifting spirits in newsrooms coast to coast. A new poll shows that you, the public, consider members of Congress much less trustworthy than journalists. The House crowd was already in the ethics ICU, but now they are practically in need of life support.

Among the professions Gallup tested, nurses were the most trusted. Doctors, police officers and clergy, also took predictably high slots on the list. But then comes the bad news for the legislative bunch. Chiropractors, bankers, lawyers, advertising types, even insurance salespeople, and stockbrokers are all rated as more ethical. Congress members are down in the basement near HMO operators and car salesman.

This disapproval number has been steadily rising for years, and Gallup says it is now more than twice as high as it was back in 2000. The reasons are embarrassingly obvious: Scandals, gridlock, endless political sniping, and pursuit of ridiculous legislation…like, uh, forcing a national college football playoff. What is harder to explain is how Congress has such a hard time grasping this concept.

A few months back Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri was at one of those uproarious town hall meetings. As the crowd seethed and shouted, she asked in a bewildered tone, “You don’t trust me?” They roared back, “No!” And she responded, “I don’t know what else I can do.”

Really? I suspect everyone except Congress knows what can be done to rebuild trust. Lawmakers could start working together a bit more; quit excusing each other’s misdeeds; and get serious about solving the many serious issues that are facing the country right now, offering voters fair and even-handed explanations of what’s on the table, instead of spin. Ha! Just kidding. While that would undoubtedly give them better numbers, it’s about as likely as Harry Reid kayaking down the Hudson with a Christmas fruit basket for Dick Cheney. Trust me.

Follow Tom on Twitter @tomforemancnn.

Tom Foreman | BIO
AC360° Correspondent

Back in junior high gym class when wrestling was on the agenda, there was no more frightening foe than the hulking Gooch McFeeney. You knew from the moment that he lumbered to the mat, dropped the beef shank he’d been gnawing on, and squinted his grizzly bear eyes, that you had no chance of winning.

But by running around, shrieking like a cheerleader every time he landed a hairy paw, and frantically squirming at least one shoulder into the air each time he went for the pin, you could delay losing for quite a while. Go on long enough, Gooch would tire, and maybe you would not have to lose at all.

It is a peculiar characteristic of sports, chess, and arguments with your spouse, that winning is much tougher than merely not losing. “Winning” requires aggressive, focused, and tenacious effort. “Not losing” just requires holding on.

That is the key problem we face in Afghanistan, even as President Obama’s new strategy is put into action. Whether we leave in 18 months, or reassess and leave in 18 years, the Taliban, as far as we can tell, is never going to leave.

There are plenty of other serious issues. Our relationship with Pakistan, while long standing, often veers into that shaky sort of Jon and Kate territory. Can we really count on them to guard the Taliban’s back door escape route while we chase the bad cats out of the Afghan kitchen? This notion of rapidly training up enough Afghans to secure their own country is another big question mark. How will they pay their troops? Are there enough young men there willing to throw themselves into this fray, or will too many seek instead a personal détente with their local Talibanistas? On it goes.

In each case, we have to effectively make progress, and the Taliban has to merely hang on. Our measure of success is the stabilization and security of an entire land. The Taliban’s success: Just a few hundred guys hiding in the hills, who wake up each day to say, “We are still here, and patient, and waiting for our next chance.” Where is Gooch McFeeney when we need him?

Follow Tom on Twitter @tomforemancnn.

Ed Rollins
CNN Senior Political Contributor

After months of review, President Obama has made a decision that will not please the base of his party. The majority of Democrats in Congress are opposed to expanding or prolonging the war in Afghanistan. Many Americans share their concern.

This decision to send 30,000 additional troops into combat, which I support, will be second-guessed for the rest of his presidency. And if it doesn't go well, it may cost him his presidency.

For a man who began his campaign as the "anti-war" candidate, this had to be a gut-wrenching decision. Critics will argue President Obama should have learned the lessons of Vietnam and remembered how that war destroyed Lyndon Johnson's presidency .

President Obama was only in elementary school during that period, but many of the leaders in Congress grew up as part of the George McGovern wing of the Democratic Party. The anti-war movement was their introduction to political activism. They are furious that their president is continuing the Bush war effort. Many will call it folly, and some will call it reckless. I call it leadership.

Keep reading

Tom Foreman | BIO
AC360° Correspondent

Like a proverbial swarm of locusts, book buyers are descending on stores coast-to-coast to devour endless stacks of a new publication. Talk and news shows are devoting so many hours to discussing the author, even John Grisham might be jealous. And the subject of all this literary wonder: Sarah Palin.

The ubiquitous former governor of Alaska is once again blasting over the American political landscape, this time astride her super-charged snowmobile of a memoir, “Going Rogue.” The actual sales figures are changing by the hour, so let’s just say she moving more paper than Dwight Schrute. Harper Collins reportedly planned to print 1.5 million copies in the first run, and industry insiders say they’ve rarely seen such pre-release demand for a non-fiction book. Although, having done some fact-checking, I must say putting it into the non-fiction category may be a stretch.

Anyway, with her custom bus rumbling from one town to the next for these Take-Back-America tent revivals, it’s like a Shania Twain concert tour without the band.

The striking thing about Palin is the fervor she evokes from both sides of the aisle. Her fans see her as one of their own; a conservative politician who speaks plainly and without apology. She talks about complex subjects as if they are easily grasped. She barbecues public discontent with politicians like a nice moose steak, and serves it up steaming with just a hint of red meat in the middle.

And what pleases her fans infuriates her foes. Want to watch a liberal friend start breaking dishes? Just say “You know, Sarah Palin has some good points.” Never mind that she has made big-enough blunders to undermine any future run at a major political office. (Hey, just look at the polls.) Forget about the fact that she is engaged in that wacky battle with her erstwhile, sort-of-son-in-law, the Playgirl posing Levi. She still drives the opposition completely nuts.

Why? It comes down to something very simple. America is interested in her. For good or for bad. And in the modern age of celebrity politics, where popularity often trumps policy, that makes her a player. Heck, she’s raised that game to such a level you might even say she wrote the book.

Follow Tom on Twitter @tomforemancnn.

David Gergen | BIO
AC360° Contributor
CNN Senior Political Analyst

Barack Obama has recently been reading up on the presidency of John F. Kennedy. Coming home from China, he might well focus on Kennedy’s first summit overseas with the leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev. Indeed, we all could learn from that episode.

Like Obama, Kennedy came into office as an inspiring figure, an idealist who stirred hopes for the future and yet was inexperienced in the exercise of power. At the time, the Soviet Union was a rising nation that was threatening the global leadership of the United States.

In the fall of his first year in office, Kennedy went to Europe where he was welcomed grandly until he arrived in Vienna to sit down with Khrushchev. Kennedy, the idealist, thought that his charm and his appeals to reason would win over the Soviet leader. Instead, Khrushchev bullied him unmercifully and the men were unable to agree on anything of substance. Polite reasoning went nowhere.

According to Kennedy biographer Richard Reeves, Khruschev left the meeting telling associates, “He’s very young… not strong enough. Too intelligent and too weak.” Khrushchev concluded that he could push Kennedy around and started causing mischief from Berlin to Cuba.

Kennedy was shaken but, fortunately, he didn’t go into denial. He went into action, treating the meeting as a wake-up call. In the months that followed, he became a much tougher, more assertive president, and a year later when a showdown came over Khrushchev sneaking missiles into Cuba, Kennedy was an outstanding leader – and he turned the tables on Khrushchev.

Why bring up that story now, as President Obama comes home from Asia? Because it has considerable relevance to his meetings in China with President Hu.

Obama went into those sessions like Kennedy: with great hope that his charm and appeal to reason – qualities so admired in the United States – would work well with Hu. By numerous accounts, that is not at all what happened: reports from correspondents on the scene are replete with statements that Hu stiffed the President, that he rejected arguments about Chinese human rights and currency behavior while scolding the U.S. for its trade policies, and that he stage-managed the visit so that Obama – unlike Clinton and Bush before him – was unable to reach a large Chinese audience through television.

To be fair, President Obama seemed to handle the situation better than Kennedy did: he wasn’t humiliated, he did secure some generalized agreements, and – so the White House believes – he laid the groundwork for a productive, long-term relationship. We shall see.

But it is equally clear that this was not at all the kind of summit that an American administration would want – and it does bear some ominous similarities to the Kennedy-Khrushchev talks in Vienna.

It would seem wise not only for President Obama but for all Americans to treat this as a wake-up call.

For the President, the challenge is whether he will start approaching international affairs with a greater measure of toughness, standing up more firmly and assertively for American interests. Yes, he must still be the man of reason and peace, but that can easily be read as a sign of weakness by others unless he balances it with the inner steel that is essential in international affairs. The most recent issue of Forbes identifies Obama and Hu as the two most powerful people on the planet – but it is Obama who is Number One, not Hu.

For the United States, this trip should also send a clear message that the balance of power is changing in the world.

Even though China is still a relatively weak country compared to the U.S., it is rising rapidly, and people around the globe are wondering if China represents the future – and the U.S. the past. We need to wake up, too, recognizing that we have to pull ourselves together to solve the challenges before us – living beyond our means for too long, building up too much debt, allowing China to become our biggest creditor, refusing to overcome our polarization, allowing our political discourse to degenerate so that it is hard to find sensible answers, and on and on.

Unless we do pull together as a great people, we will find that our whole country – not just our President – will be in for a very rough ride. Downhill.

The Senate is set to begin debating the contentious health care reform bill.

Ed Hornick
CNN

The Senate is about to embark on what could be the showdown of the year as top Democrats work to push through sweeping health care legislation.

The legislative chamber, however, is no stranger to history-changing debate. Lawmakers need to look no further than their predecessors to see how it's done.

Iraq

In 1991, Congress voted for the use of military force towards Iraq after the Saddam Hussein-led country went to war with Kuwait.

The action was the first time Congress voted for going to war since the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964, which officially began U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

The Senate vote in 1991, however, was much closer than the vote over Vietnam, illustrating a deep divide over whether to get involved.

Keep Reading...

Tom Foreman | BIO
AC360° Correspondent

So many different numbers are being tossed about on the subject of unemployment; if you spend even a day trying to sort them out you can wind up feeling like Alice in Wonderland; only this time she’s tumbled down into an unemployment line where nothing makes sense.

Here is the White House crew talking about all the jobs that they’ve “created or saved” with the stimulus. The economy is getting better, but joblessness is getting worse. Initial benefits claims are up, then they are down. The Labor Department is issuing a river of reports on jobs lost, gained, outsourced, insourced, retro-fitted, repainted, fertilized, pruned, poached in a white wine sauce, you name it. Cue the Mad Hatter. It’s no wonder whacky tea parties are breaking out across the land.

Take it easy. Having traveled at great peril through the looking glass into the surreal land of economists, I have emerged with the grail; the only number you really need to know.

16 million. Actually it’s a little under that, but let’s not quibble. That’s how many Americans are looking for work. Maybe a few less at this very moment. I met some guys in Albany who usually go fishing over the weekend, but you can bet even they will be back in the hunt for work on Monday, so my point stands.

16 million. If we asked them all to join hands and stand along the borders, (hey, what else do they have to do?) they could easily encircle the entire Lower 48 states. We’d probably even have enough left over to put them two deep on the Mexican line, and end that whole debate about building a wall. Actually, this might be a good idea overall; a visual representation of our troubles. We could let them charge for access to the beaches. Or we could pay all of them from the stimulus money! Kind of like publicly funded performance art. I mean, they need the jobs anyway, right?

16 million. It’s one of those whopping numbers that’s hard to get your head around. But in a relative sense, it is a good tool for keeping track of our job troubles. If that number gets smaller, that’s good. And if it gets bigger, well, even the Cheshire Cat won’t be grinning anymore.

Follow Tom on Twitter @tomforemancnn.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing everything in her power to get health care reform passed

Gloria Borger
CNN Senior Political Analyst

The story so far: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does everything in her power to get health care reform passed by keeping her Democratic caucus together.

She keeps liberals by insisting on a public option. She works on fiscal moderates by re-jiggering it. She works on lowering the cost of the package. She pays for it by taxing millionaire couples, appealing to the class-warfare crowd.

And to keep the Catholic bishops (and their moderate allies) on board, she keeps severe restrictions on paying for abortion in the measure. The liberals, of course, threaten to bolt - but it remains in the final package.

This is not legislating; it's whack-a-mole.

The challenge is simply to try and keep your unruly team in line, and maybe pick up a stray vote or two from the opposition. If you succeed, it's not about bipartisanship. It's just salesmanship.

Keep Reading...

Program Note: Don't miss Anderson's conversation with the book's authors Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe tonight. AC360° 10 p.m. ET.

Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe
'Sarah from Alaska'

Introduction: Lights Out

IN A CONDOMINIUM SUITE at the Arizona Biltmore Hotel, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin read over the election night victory speech that she would never have the chance to deliver. Thank you all so much. And thank you, America, for the great responsibility that you have given to President-elect John S. McCain.

It was just minutes before the stirring moment when the official results would begin to trickle in, but as the sun descended toward the desert horizon, her fatigue must have been crushing. Palin’s two months on the trail had been not just physically exhausting but mentally draining. This short, strange trip had tested her in ways that might have broken even the most hardened political pro, and she had suffered more than her fair share of setbacks and embarrassments.

Still, it was Palin’s gripping story and alluring personality that had breathed life into a once flatlining campaign. Her addition to the ticket had sparked a flood of donations, standing-room only crowds at rallies, and a surge in the polls for the Republican ticket. But along with Palin’s many positive contributions to the campaign had come as many ruinous malfunctions. In the final hours of this frenzied voyage, she would discover just how expendable she had become, as the McCain campaign was literally about to turn the lights out on her.

How had she skyrocketed so quickly into the stratosphere of American politics? Who had really been at fault for her many public stumbles? And what was it about Sarah Palin that drew such passion from both her fans and her foes? Even with the benefit of the thousands of hours of media attention that had been devoted to her candidacy, the heat of the moment did not afford the perspective for anyone to answer these questions adequately, least of all the candidate herself. On this last night of the campaign, Palin remained focused on the momentous judgment that the American people were about to deliver.

Even by presidential-campaign standards, Palin’s last two days had been borderline inhumane. She had started her Monday morning outside Cleveland, Ohio, and made her way across the Lower 48 to rallies in Missouri, Iowa, and Colorado, stopping twice in Nevada, before catching an overnight flight to Anchorage. Then she staggered to the finish line here in Phoenix. While mapping out the final days, Palin’s aides had suggested it might be more practical for the governor to vote absentee, rather than make the sixteen-hour Alaska detour, but she insisted on casting her ballot in her home state. A few paragraphs down, the victory speech became more personal, adding a touch of humor about her famously low-key husband. We were ready, in defeat, to return to a place and a life we love. And I said to my husband Todd that it’s not a step down when he’s no longer Alaska’s “First Dude.” He will now be the first guy ever to become the “Second Dude.”

Palin and more than a few of her aides had earnestly believed all fall that they could come from behind to win the thing, even though McCain’s top advisers knew the near collapse of the financial system in October likely foretold the Republican ticket’s doom. Yes, the crowds that had greeted her were enormous and passionate, and, yes, there was always hope that God would answer her prayers and grant her just one more miracle in what had been a string of unlikely successes in her short political career. But the recent polls were uniformly grim.

She turned her attention to the other set of remarks that had been penned for her, the concession speech. Like the victory address, its very existence would remain a secret after McCain and his inner circle denied her the opportunity to deliver it later in the night.

I wish Barack Obama well as the 44th president of the United States. If he governs America with the skill and grace we have often seen in him, and the greatness of which he is capable, we’re gonna be just fine. And when a black citizen prepares to fill the office of Washington and Lincoln, that is a shining moment in our history that can be lost on no one.

It was a poignant passage in the far less triumphant of the two speeches that Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, had written in advance of either outcome. A cerebral animal-protection activist, Scully was an unlikely wordsmith for the governor who could field-dress a moose. He had also penned Palin’s game-changing address at the Republican National Convention, field-dressing Obama with charges of arrogance, elitism, and inexperience. This time, however, he was exceedingly cordial in a manner appropriate for the occasion. Palin scribbled in another line with her black pen, dropping a cherry atop the hot fudge sundae: God bless you and your beautiful family, President-elect Obama.

She had first discussed her victory and concession speeches with Scully two days earlier, when they spoke in Room 719 of the Mc – Kinley Grand Hotel in Canton, Ohio. Like Scully’s former boss and many of his predecessors in the Oval Office, Palin was the kind of Christian who felt comfortable expressing her faith in public, which the speech reflected: I will remember all the people who said they were praying for me. She squeezed another handwritten line in the margin, perhaps in an attempt to get the last word in against some of the McCain aides who thought it was better for her to tone down the God talk: You prayer warriors have been my strength and my shield.

The last few weeks had been particularly trying ones for Palin, as public missteps and allegations of selfish motives had accumulated one after another and threatened to define her. But tonight’s speech was her chance to launch the next stage of her political career, and surely her fellow Republicans had seen the excitement she had inspired among the voters; surely they perceived the promise she held for the Republican Party’s future. Still, she knew how important it was to avoid any perception that her own ambitions were anywhere near the forefront of her mind. She had done most of the things she had been asked to do in order to get John McCain elected, but she had only come on board for a small piece of the ten-year odyssey he had begun when he launched his first presidential campaign in 1999. This night was about him. Palin’s antagonists in Washington, in Juneau, and especially in the media would be paying close attention to whether or not she played the good soldier in this final battle of the war…

Editor's Note: The above excerpt was taken from the book, Sarah From Alaska: The Sudden Rise and Brutal Education of a New Conservative Superstar by Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe. Excerpted by arrangement with PublicAffairs, a member of the Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2009.

Tea Party activists hit the Hill, arrested outside Pelosi's office.

Tom Foreman | BIO
AC360° Correspondent

If there is one thing that unites Democratic and Republican elites in DC, beyond of course a deep disdain for ethics rules, it is a fundamental inability to understand independent voters. The most important trend worth watching in the election this week was the behavior of the independents, and it should have sent campaign gurus running into bunkers with armloads of canned goods.

Barack Obama was swept to victory by a shift of moderate and independent voters to the Democratic side one year ago. But this week, in Virginia and New Jersey, his independent horsepower bolted from the barn. Sixty percent or more, in each place, voted Republican.

The GOP crowed over their new found friends, and Dems quietly cursed the loss. But both parties remain largely blind to what is really happening. The independents who voted for Barack Obama did so because they believed he would make a good stab at fixing the economy. But now, with the deficit still soaring, mortgages still failing, and unemployment lines still growing, they are on the move again.

They were never Democrats. They are not Republicans now. They are the deciders. They are issues voters, personality voters, trend voters, but they are pointedly not Party voters. And that is the point. A Democratic friend said some years ago, “I’ve had it with independents. They should just make up their minds!” What she, and many partisans have trouble grasping is that they already have. Millions of independents have made up their minds that both parties (and with them, the far left and far right) have failed.

I’ve talked with thousands of these folks, the Militant Middle as I’ve always called them, and they have no interest in even a hint of loyalty to the parties which they see as outdated, mean-spirited and more concerned with their own political gains than the country’s progress. And just as the parties play voters against each other to win, the independents play the parties against each other to get what they want: Government accountability.

Their message to all elected officials is, “We’re in charge. Not you. Get something done, or get out.” And if the economy does not substantially improve by next fall, the Militant Middle will lay into Democratic and Republican incumbents alike with a vengeance.

Republican Chris Christie defeated Jon Corzine in New Jersey's gubernatorial election on Tuesday.

David Gewirtz | BIO
AC360° Contributor
Editor-in-Chief, ZATZ Publishing

I think it's time I weighed in on the New Jersey election results. Some in the GOP (Chairman Michael Steele, for example) are claiming "historic" victories. Others, most notably Democrat Nancy Pelosi, are doing their level best to completely ignore the gubernatorial election results. That's right, Nancy. If you close your eyes, it never happened.

The punditocracy is going to town over this. First, most of us didn't even realize we were going to get the gift of politics until we turned on our TVs last night. It's like finding a post-season All Stars game on your TiVo when you didn't even know one was scheduled to record.

Talking heads. Pontification. Spin. It's enough to make a guy geek out all giddy with delight.

Back to New Jersey. First off, I'm a Jersey boy. I grew up in the Garden State and lived there on and off until just a few years ago, when my love for my wife (and her desire to live somewhere without winter) overwhelmed my deep connection with my native soil.

I'm telling you, it's weird down here in Florida. The Wal-Mart greeters actually greet you, sometimes even wishing you a "Blessed day". Back home in New Jersey, you never made it past a Wal-Mart greeter with anything warmer than "What you lookin' at?"

I miss New Jersey. But I digress.

I want to talk about why Democrat Jon Corzine really lost to Chris Christie. First, let's be clear about Corzine's history: he was a banker. And he wasn't just a banker, he was the banker. Jon Corzine was Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs until the late 1990s. Yes, that Goldman Sachs.

And if you don't think New Jerseyians aren't pissed off by the banks and, in particular, Goldman Sachs, you don't know my fellow citizens. So, completely separate from the issue of whether Corzine had been a good governor (and all indications are a resounding "meh"), he had one very serious point against him. He was was a super-wealthy banker running for office at a time when super-wealthy bankers should probably just be running and hiding.

And then there's the weight thing. And here's where I'm convinced he lost the election.

Jon Corzine lost by 4.4 percent to Chris Christie, a man who is by any measure big-boned. Corzine lost to Christie by just about 101,659 votes. In other words, he lost by the population of a mid-sized New Jersey town.

Corzine has made something of a campaign issue over Christie's weight, even to the point of running a campaign commercial accusing the heavier candidate of "throwing his weight around".

The dig was lost on nobody and was a matter of heavy press coverage for quite some time during the election process.

The thing is, we New Jersey folk don't take being insulted lightly. I'm a big guy and so are a lot of New Jersey citizens. Sure, there's some svelt former bankers running around the Garden State, eating up all those yummy Jersey-grown organic veggies, but New Jersey also has its fair share of rotund (and proud of it, you gonna make something of it?) citizens.

So here you have a fat cat picking on a fat dude. Out of the 2.2 million or so New Jersey residents, could there possibly have been 100,000 or so who didn't vote on issues and didn't vote on party, but voted because they were simply pissed off about the fat ads?

New Jerseyians who vote because they're pissed off? If New Jerseyians do one thing really well (and we do a lot really well), we do "pissed off" with panache. Give us something to get righteously indignant about and we're happier than a pig in a poke.

And that's what I think happened to Jon Corzine. I don't think it was a resurgence of the GOP's reach and influence. I just can't see the helicopter-hunting Sarah Palin carrying New Jersey in any way, shape, or form.

I just think some New Jersey residents remembered how much they hated bankers like Goldman Sachs and remembered that Corzine was the banker at Goldman Sachs. And I think some other New Jersey residents simply voted an "Oh, no, he didn't" about the weight thing.

I'm telling you. Don't piss off New Jersey. You'll regret it.

Follow David on Twitter at http://www.Twitter.com/DavidGewirtz.

Editor’s note: David Gewirtz is Editor-in-Chief, ZATZ Magazines, including OutlookPower Magazine. He is a leading Presidential scholar specializing in White House email. He is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is a faculty member at the University of California, Berkeley extension, a recipient of the Sigma Xi Research Award in Engineering and was a candidate for the 2008 Pulitzer Prize in Letters.

GOP candidate Bob McDonnell emerged victorious in the Virginia gubernatorial race.

CNN

Tuesday's off-year election may not have had the high stakes of the 2008 presidential election, but several races are significant on the national level:

• New York's 23rd Congressional District: Owens to win vacant U.S. House seat, CNN projects

Democratic candidate Bill Owens will be elected to a vacant U.S. House seat in upstate New York.

The race garnered national attention as local Republican leaders picked Dede Scozzafava because of her appeal to centrist Republicans, independents and even some Democrats. However, the decision sparked a revolt among conservative activists in the GOP.

Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman outpolled Scozzafava, forcing her to withdraw. Scozzafava has since endorsed Owens.

• Virginia governor: McDonnell is projected winner

CNN has projected that Republican Bob McDonnell will be elected Virginia governor. The 55-year-old former state attorney general will be the first Republican to win the state's highest office in 12 years.

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, McDonnell was leading Democratic opponent Creigh Deeds 59 percent to 41 percent.

The race was seen as an early referendum on voters' attitudes toward President Obama and his policies and an opportunity for Republicans to turn back recent Democratic gains.

Keep Reading...

Program Note: Tune in tonight to watch Anderson's conversation with David Plouffe. AC360° at 10 p.m. ET.

Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States.

David Plouffe
From 'The Audacity to Win'

In a new memoir, 'The Audacity to Win,' David Plouffe, who managed Barack Obama's 2008 race for the White House, provides a behind-the-scenes glimpse inside the campaign. Here's an excerpt:

Agony. Ecstasy.

The [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright story broke on a Wednesday and exploded across the media landscape the next day. We decided Obama had to take questions about [his former pastor's inflammatory sermons] head-on on Friday, in a series of lengthy national cable interviews.

There was one not-so-minor complication. He was already scheduled to do editorial boards that Friday afternoon with both Chicago papers about [real estate developer and political fundraiser] Tony Rezko, two hours each, no holds barred. Given no choice but to address Wright as soon as possible, we decided we would do a round of TV interviews on him directly after the Rezko boards. It shaped into quite a day, like having your legs amputated in the morning and your arms at night. The question was whether we would still have a heartbeat at the end of the day.

It was chaos and, quite frankly, frightening. I felt as if the wheels could easily spin off our whole venture. Still, Obama was the pillar of reassurance. "Don't worry, guys," he told us while making some notes on a stack of pages. "I can do more than one thing at a time. We are taking the trash out today. It won't be fun, but we'll be stronger for it."

Find more information on Plouffe's book here.

Program Note: Don't miss our special election coverage tonight, starting at 8 p.m. ET. And tune in to AC360° as we drill down on the politics of these key races and why they matter. 10 p.m. ET.

In New York's 23rd Congressional District race, Republican Dede Scozzafava endorsed a Democrat instead of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, pictured.

CNN's Political Unit

Tuesday's off-year election might not have the high stakes of the 2008 presidential election, but there are several significant races worth watching:

• New York's 23rd Congressional District

Why it matters: A conservative backlash against a moderate Republican candidate propelled this race into national headlines as proof of an ongoing family feud between the far right and moderates for control of the party.

What's the story?: Local Republican leaders picked Dede Scozzafava because of her appeal to centrist Republicans, independents and even some Democrats. But it sparked a conservative revolt, and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman outpolled Scozzafava, forcing her to withdraw. Scozzafava has since endorsed Democrat Bill Owens.

New York district bares fight for GOP's soul

Biden stumps for Owens, takes shot at Palin

WWNY: Biden asks Republicans to cross over

• Virginia Governor

Why it matters: This race is seen as an early referendum on voters' attitudes toward President Obama and his policies and an opportunity for Republicans to turn back recent Democratic gains.

Keep Reading...

Spike Lee
For Essence.com

Barack Obama's intelligence and knowledge is vast. He's understanding, he's generous. These are all things that not just Black men, but any human being can benefit from. But when he was elected, I think a lot of people, not just Black folks, felt life with an African-American president was going to be presto chango! I'm not taking about the economy, but racism. Many felt we were entering a post-racial climate, which I think is the biggest crock ever. As a people, we have to understand Barack has to be President for the United States of America. It's unprecedented what he's doing. He's on uncharted waters. He needs our support, he needs our prayers, he needs our help in moving forward.

Barack has a definite influence on young boys. I see it with my own eyes with my 12-year-old son Jackson. If we're at a dinner and someone says something critical of Barack, he stands up at the table and defends him. Jackson's not having it! He'll say, What do you want him to do? He's doing his job! Leave him alone. He's proud of his president. We can't even estimate now the influence Barack will have on young Black boys, or the influence of Sasha and Malia. They're going to have a great effect on young Black girls too.

Keep Reading...