For those of you that were too young to remember a cat named Socks, he was Clinton’s cat, procured in 1991, before the Clintons moved into the White House. When Socks entered the West Wing as first pet, he was only the fourth cat to occupy the White House, an interesting distinction. There he occupied his time by terrorizing helpless reporters during his many press briefings, helping President Clinton to draft anti-dog legislation during his time in office and hiding many times in the secret White House areas designated for emergency.

Of course, life wasn’t always catnip and Fancy Feast for the first cat. In 1997, Clinton replaced Socks as the first pet by adopting a Labrador Retriever named Buddy, which quickly became the choice White House pet by its occupants. Apparently, Socks despised Buddy, necessitating frequent flights from the rapid beast to higher books shelves and White House chandeliers.

Despite the animosity, Socks and Buddy penned a book together with First Lady Hillary Clinton detailing the many letters to two pets received during their time in office. But of course, the feline was not immune to scandal during his reign. GOP Rep. Dan Burton targeted the cat in his crusade against pork spending, seeing the cat’s futile attempts to correspond with children as a drain on the nation’s treasury. Socks was able to stave off impeachment, but not after many restless nights of play in the West Wing.

When the Clintons themselves left the White House in 2001, Socks parted ways with the back-stabbing, dog-loving Clinton, opting instead to adopt human Betty Currie, Clinton’s secretary. Socks has remained with Currie to this day, enjoying the time out of the spotlight. Sadly, though, Socks’ life is nearing an end.

Well, I wanted to ease back into blogging with something fun, this seemed appropriate. If Obama is looking for a cat with attitude, boy do I have one for him. I would certainly miss Sue if he had to take a term or two in the White House, but I believe he’s ready to answer his nation’s call to service. It’s a long shot, but my cat Sue is ready to fill the socks of Socks, if Obama asks. Still waiting for that call.

Other blog news: I’ll be doing a sort of Nick’s Blog 2.0 before inauguration day, hopefully. I know I’ve been less than a dutiful blogger lately, I’ve been enjoying the afterglow of my first successful semester. I have some exciting news I have neglected to share: I’ll be spending my summer in the Beltway! I’ll be covering real politics instead of musing about it from the safety of my own blog. Looking forward to it!

Anyways, I’ll see about cooking up something later for today. Thanks for reading!

That’s my friend Beth in the Futures Lab at the Reynolds Journalism Institute at Mizzou. That’s where you’ll find me most days. I’m slaving away in there either pitching a story for convergence hell class or working on one. Oh, convergence hell class is just my name for convergence reporting. The good news is that it’s over soon and I won’t be revisiting the convergence sequence until next fall. And the word is that the next course is not nearly as difficult as this one. Thank God!

Basically, after my birthday on Nov. 10, I have been running around like a crazy grad student wrapping up my first semester at Mizzou. On the 18th, I had my major semester project due in one of my classes. It was a 15-page research paper and I think I did alright on it. I had a convergence story due the same week, so that was awful. I didn’t get much sleep, if any, that week. This week we are off for the break, but it sure doesn’t feel like a break to me. I’m doing a project in my media/politics class that’s due Monday, and I just finished writing that monster last night.

Since that stress is lifting from my shoulders, I figured I would chime in to at least give this blog another tug, in case it has garnered some interest somewhere. I’ll try to blog a bit more this week. In just two weeks, this semester will be history and I will be free for a month plus, I’m not sure what I’m going to do with myself. Hopefully copious amounts of blogging intermixed with back-to-back snooze session. Ah, it’s great to be a college student again!

American Express seeking $3.5 billion as part of government bailout program
The Associated Press

NEW YORK — American Express Co. is seeking $3.5 billion in funds under the government’s plan to directly invest in financial firms, according to a Wednesday report in The Wall Street Journal citing unnamed sources.

Earlier this week, American Express received approval from the Federal Reserve to become a bank holding company, which is a similar structure to traditional commercial banks. The credit card company now has access to financing from the Fed and the ability to grow a large deposit base.

The increased funding opportunities through government programs, including the potential $3.5 billion investment, could be a huge boost to American Express as one of its primary sources of funding has nearly disappeared amid the ongoing credit crisis.

American Express relied on packaging pools of credit card debt and selling them to investors in the securitization market. As investors have shied away from purchasing all but the safest forms of debt, the market for credit card-backed securities has dwindled.

American Express is also facing a slowdown in the broader economy, which has led to more customers missing payments and cutting back on spending, hurting the company’s profitability.

So you have a company here who preys on Americans, imposing short-term lending agreements meant to squeeze cash from consumers and pad company profits. Now facing a bleeding credit market that is likely now to spread to consumer credit cards, AMEX is crying for a bailout from the very taxpayers they are bankrupting out of house and home.

OK, that’s a bit of a stretch, but it still leaves me a bit queasy. I know credit card companies aren’t incarnations of the devil, but I do believe they craft credit agreements that are often not in the best interest for consumers they supposedly serve. While consumers have a burden in deciding which credit agreement they can live with, credit card companies also have obligations. For one, they shouldn’t lend to consumers that can’t pay their credit cards!

So if AMEX is bleeding money and can’t afford to take the limo to the office today or take that week-long spa trip this Christmas, excuse me while I play the world’s smallest violin. SUCK. IT. UP.

I only hope the federal government has the decency to impose the same credit terms on AMEX that they and many others impose on consumers. How does 25 percent interest sound to you?

McDonald’s same-store sales rise 8.2 percent
By Lauren Shepherd
The Associated Press

NEW YORK — Consumers worldwide who are watching their spending bought more burgers and chicken breakfast biscuits at McDonald’s in October, leading to a big rise in sales at established locations for the fast-food leader.

McDonald’s Corp. said Monday its global same-store sales jumped 8.2 percent during the month. That beat the company’s own prediction for a rise similar to the one it recorded in its last quarter, when same-store sales, or sales at locations open at least a year, jumped 7.1 percent worldwide.

The results were a bright spot in what was a dismal month for most restaurant operators. Many sit-down chains have reported steep declines in same-store sales during October as consumers grew more anxious about the possibility of a prolonged recession.

But U.S. consumers kept spending at McDonald’s, even as Congress passed a bill to bail out the economy and credit markets froze.

Same-store sales rose 5.3 percent in the United States, helped by new menu items, including the Southern Style Chicken sandwich, and continued demand for breakfast items. The company’s popular Dollar Menu and its annual Monopoly promotion also drew in value-hungry consumers.

Frankly, the recession isn’t going to be sending me to the drive through at McDonald’s. As a vegetarian, I’m relegated to salads, apple pies and sodas at Mickey-D’s. I mean, do you know that they put beef fat in french fries to make them taste better? I know I’m a leaf-eater, but that’s just gross anyway you cut it.

Now, In-N-Out Burger, that’s a fast food chain I can get behind in a recession (too bad I’m thousands of miles away from the nearest location.

I’m sorry, but we’re in perhaps the most serious financial crisis since the great depression, and I swear I just heard reporter Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times ask President-elect Barack Obama about his daughters’ new puppy?

OK, I know I may have mentioned that the press is typically good at shifting gears with a favored presidential candidate, changing the focus from whatever positive political coverage from the campaign to a more traditional watchdog emphasis, providing a healthy dose of skepticism and curiosity to the new agenda.

If this can be any indication, that is not catching on as quickly as it should:

Obama breaks down his family’s puppy dilemma: ‘We have two criteria that have to be reconciled.’
By Faiz Shakir
Think Progress

After meeting with his Transition Advisory Board this afternoon, President-elect Barack Obama held a press conference to discuss his plan to move forward on the economy. Obama laid out three principles: “a rescue plan for the middle class,” “address the spreading impact of the financial crisis on other sectors of our economy,” and “review the implementation of this Administration’s financial program.” When Obama opened it for questions, the Chicago Sun-Times’ Lynn Sweet turned the page on the economy, asking instead about his family’s puppy dilemma — namely, what kind of puppy will he get for his daughters. Addressing the question with his trademark dead-pan sarcasm, Obama responded, “We have two criteria that have to be reconciled.”

… Obama indicated his own personal leanings: “Our preference would be to get a shelter puppy, but obviously a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me.”

First thought, completely unfiltered, off the top of my head: Who cares?! I mean, it was a cute line for a victory speech, but this is the president-elect and he’s dealing with some major issues, not to mention the fact that unemployment shot up to a 14-year high last month.

Why are reporters asking these pointless questions? Not cute. Not professional. And this totally plays into the arguments by conservatives that the press is in the tank for Obama and will continue to fawn over him as he takes the highest office in the land.

What I also find interesting is the treatment of this remark by Think Progress, a liberal blog. While I haven’t heard outrage pouring out of conservative blogs for the remark, the fact that it was highlighted in a somewhat disinterested light by a liberal blog poses some interesting questions about how the partisan blogosphere will change in the next four years.

I’ve always been of the opinion that liberal blogs were always the more organized and ambitious, mostly because they were in the minority in governance and were always seeking to support candidates on the rebound. Red blogs always seem to be less interesting, over-confident and ineffective among their empowered leadership. Will this shift now that Democrats are in power? Will red blogs become more mobilized and influential as Republicans enter the wilderness of power?

We’ll have to wait and see.

More than voting: Volunteerism in the election of 2008

Barack Obama’s campaign targeted Missouri as a potential pick-up in the 2008 election, relying heavily on volunteer effort to get out the vote. Nick Mustoe, a University of Missouri student, was one such volunteer. Current TV reporters Nick McClellan and Brad Fischer followed Mustoe through the final days and hours of campaign 2008. Mustoe shared how volunteering for a political campaign made a profound difference in his life, challenged him to take action and convinced him that change begins within.

Like I mentioned earlier, this is my favorite day. On Nov. 5, that’s when all the finger pointing and recriminations emerge and finally politicians begin to be honest. The voters have spoken and, especially in this election, it’s not hard to understand what they are saying.

What you saw last night was the most clear mandate any president has received since Bill Clinton. What you saw last night was not the Democrats’ answer to the Reagan revolution, like some would lead you to believe. Despite that, our country has moved toward a president who has the clear will of the people and the potential to return government to the good graces of the people it servers.

So what are the pundits saying now that we know what’s what?

The Obama Revolution
By John F. Harriss and Jim Vandehei
Politico

Nov. 4, 2008, was the day when American politics shifted on its axis.

The ascent of an African-American to the presidency — a victory by a 47-year-old man who was born when segregation was still the law of the land across much of this nation — is a moment so powerful and so obvious that its symbolism needs no commentary.

But it was the reality of power, not the symbolism, that changed Tuesday night in ways more profound than meet the eye.

The rout of the Republican Party, and the accompanying gains by Democrats in Congress, mean that Barack Obama will assume office with vastly more influence in the nation’s capital than most of his recent predecessors have wielded.

… For most of the past 30 years, since the dawn of the Reagan Era, conservatives have held the momentum in American politics. Even the Clinton years were shaped — and constrained — by conservative ideas (work requirements for welfare, the Defense of Marriage Act) and conservative rhetoric (“the era of Big Government is over”). Republicans rode this wave to win the presidency five of seven times since 1980, and to dominate Congress for a dozen years after 1994.

Now the wave has crashed, breaking the back of the modern Republican Party in the process.

Obama’s victory and the second straight election to award big gains to congressional Democrats showed that the 2006 election was not, as Karl Rove and others argued at the time, a flukish result that reflected isolated scandals in the headlines at the time.

Hands down, this election proved that the movement to Democrats in 2006 was certainly not a fluke. However, is this really the crash of the Reagan Revolution?

Taking Stock
Posted by Brad Smith
RedState

The picture here this morning looks surprisingly like the picture in the aftermath of the 1992 election.

Senator Obama appears to have won the popular vote by about five points – it will probably be closer to six when all the votes are totaled. He has won somewhere between 349 and 376 electoral votes, depending on the outcome in Nebraska’s third congressional district, Missouri, and North Carolina. Using present vote totals, Obama would take North Carolina out of that group, to finish with 364 electoral votes.

In 1992, Clinton beat Bush by 5.3 percentage points in the popular vote, and finished with 370 electoral votes. Yes, there was a big difference — the presence of Ross Perot — but Clinton almost certainly would have won with or without Perot, and probably by very similar margins in both categories. Bottom line is that Democrats won in 1992 presidential just about what they won in the 2008 presidential.

If fact, even the electoral college map looks quite similar; depending on who wins North Carolina and Missouri, between just nine and eleven states will differ from 1992 to 2008. Most of those were extremely close this year, too, notably Montana and Georgia, which went Democratic in 1992 and narrow Republican in 2008, and Florida, Indiana, and Virginia, which went Republican in 1992 and barely Democratic in 2008.

I agree. The results of this election look strikingly similar to the mandate delivered to Clinton in 1992, except I think the absence of Ross Perot would have made it more difficult for the Democrat to capture a clear majority of voters.

Today, in a short survey of conservative reaction among my friends, I found some absolutely crazed responses to the Obama victory. One reaction:

woe is me….I will sell my house because regardless of what the masses think, President Elect “I’ll give you everything” Obuma is NOT going to pay off my mortgage. Once I do, I am going to invest in some weapons and ammunition, buy a cabin on a hill for tactical advantage against the terrorists when they come, and bury my money in the back yard.

Hopefully, I can hold them off for the next 4 years when the masses realize they have been duped, their money taken from them, and the country is worse then than it ever was.

I think that’s a bit of an over reaction. If conservatives are going to weather this setback and still retain some semblance of their movement, they are going to have to learn from this defeat and adapt. Of course, Michelle Malkin provides the best rallying call for true-blooded conservatives, and she’s even inspired some right-leaning Republican troops questioning the election results:

Gird your loins, conservatives
Michelle Malkin

There is no time to lick wounds, point fingers, and wallow in post-election mud.

I’m getting a lot of moan-y, sad-face “What do we do now, Michelle?” e-mails.

What do we do now? We do what we’ve always done.

We stand up for our principles, as we always have — through Democrat administrations and Republican administrations, in bear markets or bull markets, in peacetime and wartime.

We stay positive and focused.

We keep the faith.

We do not apologize for our beliefs. We do not re-brand them, re-form them, or relinquish them. We defend them.

We pay respect to the office of the presidency. We count our blessings and recommit ourselves to our constitutional republic.

… First assignment for fiscal conservatives in Washington:

1) Oppose the Democrats’ next stimulus boondoggle.
2) Oppose Obama’s windfall profits tax proposal.
3) Oppose new bailouts for states deep in debt.
4) Oppose new foreclosure prevention measures that will simply provide perverse incentives for borrowers to walk away and delay a needed market correction.
5) No more federal loan guarantees for corporations.

If anyone is poised to help Republicans return principled conservatives to office, it’s Michelle. And her draft agenda is quite effective. If Republicans had stayed true to their ideology and opposed the bailout, perhaps voters would have had more love for them on Election Day.

So do conservatives have a chance to retake the flow of air in 2010 and take back the White House in 2012? Absolutely. We don’t know who their candidates will be, but it’s obvious they are suffering from some fundamental difficulties with their electoral strategy (a point I may explore Sunday). But a lot of their potential success will hinge on how Obama uses his mandate to lead. Is Obama prepared to deliver the magical “change” he’s been so eloquent about in the past two years? Of course, that remains to be seen.

Democrats have a lot to be happy about. Though it wasn’t a blowout, like many postulated it could be, it was definitely a major shift. This is a fascinating time. How will transition treat to president-in-waiting? How long will the press honeymoon last for the Democrats before the watchdogs are unleashed yet again? And what is the legacy of George W. Bush? Where is he going and what do Americans think?

Awesome questions, and this will be my political focus in the months to come. Quick question though: I cited, arguably, mostly right-leaning sources in this post. Does that make me more right-wing, moderate or, by some fluke, liberal? I really aspire to be a moderate blog and hopefully I succeed more than I fail. I would be interested in what anyone has to say on the subject (if anyone’s out there!)

Conservatives refuse to take their stunning loss as a sign of their failure to govern and a decisive verdict on the conservative policies that have enbiggened government and led us to the brink of economic catastrophe. They are also failing to see the err in their election strategy. Instead of embracing the centrist McCain, they veered him sharply to the right, turning off Clinton Democrats and independent voters, though shoring up their shrinking base.

Michelle Malkin fired the first salvos this evening, and while her vision of the future of the Republican Party includes further radical right-wing candidates, she is a voice that should not be pushed aside. I believe the genesis of the 2012 Republican presidential nominating contest will orginate from Malkin’s excellent blog, so be keen to the things she has to say:

The One ascends; McCain concedes
By Michelle Malkin

Well, it’s official. Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States. Fox and NBC have called the race.

It’s a historic moment.

Congratulations.

Here’s my promise to you: As long as I can still publish a blog and speak my mind openly about the next denizen of the White House, I will.

… Democrats won the White House, but they do not have an unfettered mandate for left-wing policies across the board.

Republicans need to learn from their losses. First step: Don’t put the same old, same old capitulationists and re-branding pimps in leadership positions.

You know the definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I applaud Malkin’s promise to view the Obama Administration skeptically, but I hope that doesn’t amount to pointless muckraking and petty political games. What we need is principled conservatives who stay true to their ideology and work with our new president to forge consensus and results. What we don’t need is another Clintonian witch hunt to drive Obama from power in disgrace and embarrassment.

So I hope that Republicans can mature and join the rest of the country in our embrace of real change for our political system.

What a great night!

UPDATE: They just called Ohio and New Mexico, two Bush states, for Obama. There is no path to the presidency for John McCain. I’m calling it.

In a decisive victory, Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election, becoming the 44th president and the first black president in history. Obama begins the transition period on Nov. 5, and will become president on Jan. 20, 2009.

God bless America! This is truly historic, everyone should be proud of this amazing election.

Wednesday’s episode of South Park is likely to be a timely address of the election which is playing off today. It looks like they are going to play a game of, “Who’s president-elect” between McCain and Obama. If it’s anything like the episodes “Douche and Turd” and “Best Friends Forever,” which were produced very quickly in the wake of the 2004 election and the Terri Schiavo controversy respectively, the episode could be a surprising example of the quickness of modern animation production. Do you remember the episode “Christmas in Canada” where the makers of South Park produced a Saddam Hussein-themed episode just days after he was captured in Iraq?

Let’s see if Matt and Trey are up to it again.