Is Barack Obama trying to do too much at once? Should Timothy Geithner go? Jim Pinkerton and I ponder all this and more in our latest Bloggingheads.tv diavlog. And, once again, we argue over global warming because Pinkerton continues to insist that it ain't happening and that all those scientists who say it is are part of some politically-driven plot. Yes, he does. Really.

By the way, this was filmed hour before Chas Freeman withdrew his name from consideration as head of the National Intelligence Council. In the diavlog, I said that Freeman might survive and that the issue was only at Defcon 4 or so. So once again we learn, beware making predictions. By the way, in the above diavlog, Pinkerton predicted that Obama will serve no more than one term, and I was forced--practically against my will!--to remind him (oh so gently) that he had predicted that Obama would lose about 40 states in the November election. A lesson to us all.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter.com by clicking here.

Barack Obama wins. Mitch McConnell is talking nice about the president-elect. And Henry Waxman bounces John Dingell from the chairmanship of the all-powerful House energy and commerce committee.

It's a good time to be a liberal in Washington.

Sure, Clintonites are scoring well in the Obama administration sweepstakes, and the Clinton years are remembered by liberals for the exasperating triangulations of Bill, Hill and their crew. But the combo of Obama's triumph and the far-from-over economic meltdown has provided liberals with their best opening since the days of the Great Society, or even the New Deal. Forget--for the moment, only for the moment, I promise--Hillary Clinton's possible appointment as secretary of state. There's something larger going on and it's truly a fundamental change: the market is dead. It cannot even take care of itself. So how can anyone rely on--or call for--market-driven solutions for the challenges that face the nation: the economy, the health care crisis, and global warming?

In a speech scheduled for Monday afternoon, John McCain will essentially say, "President Bush screwed up on global warming." From the prepared text:

As president...I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges....The United States will lead and will lead with...an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation.

That sure sounds as if McCain thinks Bush was a shirker. Now did he say that during the GOP primaries? I don't recall him doing so. Wonder why he didn't blast Bush on global warming when he was courting Republican voters?

Now that McCain is fishing for independent and moderate voters in the general election, he's touting his global warming position, which is rather enlightened for a Republican. But as my colleague Jonathan Stein points out, McCain's environmental record is hardly all green. His lifetime voting record from the League of Conservation Voters: 24 percent.

A few weeks ago, I published a story that reported on how McCain sabotaged his own global warming bill in the Senate by attaching to it billions of dollars in tax subsidies for the nuclear energy industry. Even though many people--including his own environmental policy aide--warned him that doing so would do in his bill, the Senate's first attempt to redress global warming, McCain stubbornly insisted on the nuclear subsidies. Well, the warnings were right. The subsidies sank the bill. McCain's attempt to craft a legislative remedy for global warming fizzled. He then passed the buck to other senators. No doubt, he does feel strongly about the need to address climate change. Yet in that episode he was his own worst enemy. Read the full story here.

Last night, as I noted yesterday, was the annual Radio and TV dinner in Washington. George W. Bush sent his regrets, citing a higher calling than dining with 2000-plus broadcasters, journalists, and others: that is, hosting a dinner for the pope. Yes, Bush passed up the chance to make jokes about the Iraq war, as he did four years ago. Bush's stand-in at the dinner as stand-up-in-chief was Dick Cheney.

Cheney did not sling any jokes about the war. Instead, he riffed on global warming and his own lack of enthusiasm for that particular threat, noting that he prefers to refer to global warming "as spring." And, he added, it's going to get a lot warmer and then it's going to get cooler. Get it?

His routine was good enough, if predictable. But what was not entirely predictable was that night passed without serious mention of the fact that U.S. troops are now at war. Cheney made not a reference to the war and the Americans serving overseas. Not that e should have worked them into his ghostwritten gags. But there was no moment at the end when the Veep got serious and noted that as journalists and Washington players eat, drink, and make merry, this is a nation at war, with thousands of its sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters in harm's way.

I don't want to come across as a stuffy killjoy. But there was a frivolity at the dinner that was out of sync with...well, the real world. I'm sure hardworking broadcasters and journalists could use a night out. But there was no recognition from our national No. 2 that this country is in a moment of trouble (and that would include economic trouble). And there was no nod to the guys and gals he dispatched to Iraq, Americans who are not able to take time out to joke around at a formal dinner. Talk about no class--or elitism.

This is not a first. Following the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2005, I wrote:

No mention of the US troops being killed in Iraq but a horse jerk-off joke--that is one way to sum up the First Couple's appearance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner on Saturday evening.

So there is now a tradition in Washington. The president or the vice president laughs it up at the fancy dinners and ignores the troops in Iraq and the war they are supposed to be overseeing night and day. No wonder I needed a drink.

Warning: sports metaphor ahead.

Imagine a year in which the NCAA college basketball tournament is made up of 64 teams that are each lousy. None deserve to be national champion. Yet no matter how bad these squads are, it is a mathematical certainty that one of the 64 will end up winning six games in a row and take the title.

That's worth keeping in mind when pondering what will happen in the Republican presidential contest. Yesterday's dull debate in Iowa was a reminder that none of these guys ought to win. I could list the obvious reasons--Rudy's a gay-loving abortion rights supporter; Mitt's a flipper; John's too crotchety; Mike's got little to say about national security; Fred's a box-office disappointment--but why bother? You know it. Many of the Republican voters in Iowa know it. Still, one of these rather imperfect candidates is going to win.

When asked who it will be--and each day someone demands that I make a prediction--I throw up my hands and say, "I haven't a clue." There are too many imperfections to factor into any calculations. Too many structural flaws to say whose construction will stand (that is, not collapse). But the debate yesterday reaffirmed two simplistic and basic points: Romney sure looks and acts like a president from Central Casting, and Huckabee comes across as a likable fellow. With a field of Grade B choices, such attributes are not to be dismissed.

By the way, David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, which sponsored the debate, opined that Thompson fared best. He credited Thompson for refusing "to play the 'raise your hand' game in answering a question about global warming." But given that the question was whether Thompson agreed that global warming is caused by human activity and poses a threat, it could be that this moment comes to haunt Thompson, who has flirted with global warming denial--should Thompson reach a position where general election voters care about his mocking skepticism toward global warming.

There's unlikely to be a Thompson bubble--or any other bubble--as the result of this last debate before the Iowa caucuses. Republican voters in Iowa are just going to have to find an inadequate candidate to settle for. And these sort of political decisions do not show up in my crystal ball.

THE WORLD THEY MAKE. The Bush administration is not big on responsibility. I know that's no news flash. But two stories in yesterday's paper made this point. A Washington Post front-pager reported that Defense Secretary Bob Gates is peeved that NATO is not doing more in Afghanistan, where the war is not going well. The article also covered congressional testimony delivered by Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. An excerpt:

Pressed by lawmakers on whether the United States should not shift more of its military resources to Afghanistan, Gates and Mullen held firm, saying Iraq remains the overarching priority for stretched U.S. forces.

"In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must," Mullen said. "There is a limit to what we can apply to Afghanistan."

So Bush starts another war before finishing the war in Afghanistan and now the U.S. military cannot do an effective job in Afghanistan because of that and Gates is angry that NATO allies are not picking up the slack? Seems there's a lesson in here--and perhaps cause for some humility in asking other countries to do more in Afghanistan, which, of course, they should.

Then there was this headline in the Post:

Hard Choices on Climate Can Wait for Next President, Aides Indicate

That kind of says it all.