I don't know if this is really really big news or if it's just DC's game of lowering expectations to soften a loss and boost a win, but either way, it's big news. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said today that Democrats almost assuredly have the votes to pass health care reform - and I mean actual passage, not just debate.

From The Hill:

Speaking at an afternoon press conference four hours before an 8 p.m. procedural vote that would bring the bill to the Senate floor, McConnell said Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) appears to have the necessary 60 votes for the procedural motion -- and that, based on Senate history, eventual passage is likely.

"Well over 95 percent of the time, I'm told, when we approve a motion to proceed to a bill, the bill is ultimately approved," McConnell said. "Most of the time, when we proceed on the bill, the bill eventually passes."

The Republican leader quickly denied his observation was an admission of defeat, promising stiff opposition up until the final vote in the near future.

I am not quite so assured of passage as is our opponent. I doubt we'll fail for lack of one vote - no Democrat will be the only Democrat to oppose this - but a block could well stick together. Still, it is with Durbin that they consult and whip, not Kyl. No one is coming to the Republicans and saying "I'm with you." So while this may not be a white flag, it is a red flag for us bulls to charge.

And that's sixty. From The Hill:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has secured the vital 60th vote he needs to advance healthcare reform legislation with the announcement by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) that she will vote with her part Saturday evening.

"I have concluded that it is more important to begin this debate rather than just simply drop the issue and walk away," Lincoln said on the Senate floor. "I'm not afraid of that debate."

Gee, ya think?

Now let's see if it can hold together for a couple more weeks.

Update [2009-11-21 16:8:2 by Jerome Armstrong]: Some great things in the healthcare reform:

Harry Reid is not a fan of WaPo columnist David Broder.

Reid couldn't have been less impressed. "To focus on a man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in a while is not where we should be."

No doubt the most hilarious moment of the day.

Nice. More at TPM.

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

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

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

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

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

Oooooops.

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

The past few days have not been kind for those who would combat climate change. On Sunday, it was announced that the goal of an international treaty is being postponed from next month's Copenhagen conference to maybe next year's Mexico City summit, never mind the looming scientific tipping point. Monday, Senator John Kerry announced that the Senate probably won't take up energy legislation until March 2010, never mind the looming midterms. Yesterday, our own desmoinesdem wrote that the Kerry-Boxer bill has been so watered down that we would be better off abandoning the legislative process altogether in favor of EPA regulations. I somewhat explained why I don't share that pessimistic view in the comment section, but she made compelling points and I certainly understand the reasoning.

Yet for all that, it's not all bleak. There is one bright spot in climate news this week (two, counting Charles' post on the Alexander-Webb nuclear energy bill): President Obama and Chinese President Hu have announced an agreement to work together on various clean energy. I think Time Magazine has the most succinct summary:

"As the two largest consumers and producers of energy, there can be no solution to this challenge without the efforts of both China and the United States," said Obama in Beijing. "That is why we've agreed to a series of important new initiatives in this area."

There were no agreements for specific numbers or emissions cuts at Obama and Hu's meeting. The White House has made clear that the Senate must take the lead on setting emissions levels, and China has been loath to name numbers for its own emissions. But the two Presidents did agree to establish a joint clean-energy research center, supported by at least $150 million in funding over five years, a partnership on developing electric vehicles, a renewable-energy road map and an action plan on energy efficiency....

The only bothersome thing here is the discussion of "clean coal" innovation. Fact: at present, clean coal does not exist. End of story. That does not mean, however, that it can't exist in the future. I have no problem researching that potential - as long as no new coal reactors are built before the technology is perfected, which I don't think is the case here.

Overall, though, this story is welcome news. Writing at Dr. Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog, Andrew Light and Julian L. Wong of the Center for American Progress detail the nine areas where China and the U.S. have agreed to work together, including nuclear power and shale gas. The two see this as very exciting news:

The overall plan is much more ambitious in scope and depth than we had anticipated and contains directives to create various institutions and programs addressing a wide array of cooperation on clean-energy technologies and capacity building, including very important efforts on helping China build a robust, transparent and accurate inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions...

Taken together, these commitments and statements represent an important step forward towards agreeing on a protocol for accurate accounting and verification of China's policies for achieving the necessary emissions reductions that science requires. They will also hopefully start to satisfy those skeptical that China will agree to a protocol for accurate accounting and verification of its impressive array of policies for achieving emissions reductions.

The announcements also suggest that the United States and China are on the same page when it comes to both the necessity of aggressively moving forward on an affirmative agenda to reduce carbon pollution and create millions of new clean energy jobs. The agreement contains concrete measures for sustained and meaningful collaboration and demonstrates that the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases are prepared to move beyond the tired narrative of developed versus developing country responsibilities on climate action toward a more "positive, cooperative, and comprehensive" relationship on clean energy and climate change.

What does this mean for domestic politics? Perhaps nothing - it's hardly a true treaty, and diplo-speak often amounts to empty words. On the other hand, this is not the first strong statement from China on the subject of global warming, so perhaps it will help take the rug out from under those "moderate" and conservative politicians who insist that the US cannot lead until China and India have done so.

Part 3 in a series on voices of faith and climate change.

On Friday, I wrote about statements and actions from the leaders of the world's three largest Christian denominations on climate change. On Saturday, I posted eight faith-based videos from Repower America (including my own). Today's post will broaden the scope of this series considerably.

Faith in Public Life is a progressive organization that coordinates faith-based political campaigns and monitors the news for stories about faith communities involved with issues like health care, hunger, immigration, and the environment. Each day they send out a helpful newsletter highlighting around a dozen articles of interest. Using those newsletters as a guide, here are 18 faith-based environmental links from the first half of November.

So far this series has focused almost exclusively on Christianity, so I would like to give special attention to one story in particular. From the Telegraph, "Medina to go green":

Medina will be the first Islamic city to go green, the Grand Mufti of Egypt has announced, as part of a seven year plan to make the religion more environmentally friendly.

Speaking at the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC) conference at Windsor Castle, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, said Islam teaches its followers to protect the Earth. He announced the plans for Medina as part of a seven year plan to make the faith more environmentally friendly by teaching about climate change in Islamic schools, using renewable energy in mosques and encouraging green habits in places of pilgrimage.

Medina, the second holiest city in Islam, will go green by improving public transport, providing clean water from taps so pilgrims do not continue to use plastic bottles and printing leaflets and the Koran on recycled paper...

As an oil-producing nation, Saudia Arabia has not been seen as a "green destination". However the pronouncements of the Grand Mufti is likely to influence the deeply religious country and encourage millions of pilgrims to reduce their carbon footprint.

Headlines and, in some cases, summaries of 17 other stories are below the jump. Evangelicals, Catholis, Protestants, the Orthodox, Sikh, Shintos - most everyone makes at least a brief appearance. Some are commentary; most are hard news. I know you don't have the time to read all 17, but I encourage you to scan the headlines and pick one or two that sound interesting.

We haven't talked too much about Governor Sarah Palin the last few weeks, and with good reason. Despite her incredibly splashy upcoming book tour, this woman does not pose much of a threat to the progressive movement or to the larger country's well-being. She may have a long and lucrative future as a windy and bitter pundit, but being the next Sean Hannity or Michelle Malkin is not the same as being the next Bob Dole or Ronald Reagan.

According to a CBS New Poll out today (n=873, Nov. 13-15, RDD, w/cell phones, +/-3% MOE), Palin has a lower approval rating than George W. Bush ever had.

Just 23 percent of those surveyed in a new CBS News poll have a favorable view of the former Alaska governor. That matches her favorable rating in July, when Palin announced she was resigning from her job as governor...

Most Americans do not want to see Palin run for president in 2012. Two in three say they don't want to see a Palin run, while 24 percent say they would like to see her jump into the race. Republicans are divided: Forty-four percent want Palin to run, but even more -- 48 percent -- do not.

Many presidential candidates start out with lower approval ratings than this, but few of them have such high name recognition - they have more places to go, more impressions left to form than does Palin. What's more, these numbers probably won't be helped by the intra-party controversies and fact checking articles surrounding her new book. The only way Palin could improve her standing among Republicans and Independents is to get serious about learning policy and less embattled when reporters dare ask follow-up questions, something she of the thin skin doesn't seem too inclined to do. It's one thing to get ticked when a comedian jokes about raping your child, it's another thing entirely to call a reporter "biased" for asking you why you're qualified to be our chief diplomat.

Walter Shapiro at Politics Daily argues that these numbers don't matter: with just 35% of Republican support, he says, she could win a crowded Republican primary. Maybe, but the Republicans have historically given the nomination to whoever's "turn" it is, and that would be either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. Four of their past five nominees dating back to 1980 (McCain, Dole, Bush 1, Reagan) had previously run before - Palin has not. And while the field will be crowded, I don't think it will be so crowded that 35% wins. Fields winnow rapidly - by Super Tuesday last year, the Democrats and Republicans were each down to three.

Palin's chances of winning national office and shaping policy are slim to none, leaving her only with the ability to lead the fringe - and I'm not too worried about that, either. I've said many times that the tea party fringe's potential ability to inspire a loan nut to violence scares me far more than its ability to shape the nation's policy agenda. Palin may be one of the few establishment Republican leaders embraced by that fringe, but her rhetoric isn't as heated as some. No, whether it's policy or fringe leadership, the only time I'm going to spend worrying about Sarah Palin's national presence is the time it takes me to pick up my eyeballs from where they finished rolling across the room. For fringe leadership, Glenn Beck is worth watching, and I would worry about a Mitt Romney winning the GOP nomination, but for anything beyond small increases in GOTV, Sarah Palin is done.

The beauty of a Palin candidacy is that her shortcomings are so transparent. What may drive liberals nuts about a given conservative is often something independents will question or fail to see - see George W. Bush, first term. With Palin, we don't have that problem. Bob Schieffer agrees:

Big news from the President's trip to Asia. I find this simultaneously hopeful and sobering. The New York Times is reporting that world leaders, including President Obama, have decided to make next month's Copenhagen conference on climate change a goal-setting conversation rather than a treaty-forging game changer.

President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the Copenhagen conference to reach a less specific "politically binding" agreement that would punt the most difficult issues into the future.

At a hastily arranged breakfast on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meeting on Sunday morning, the leaders, including Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the prime minister of Denmark and the chairman of the climate conference, agreed that in order to salvage Copenhagen they would have to push a fully binding legal agreement down the road, possibly to a second summit meeting in Mexico City later on...

Among the chief barriers to a comprehensive deal in Copenhagen was Congress's inability to enact climate and energy legislation that sets binding targets on greenhouse gases in the United States. Without such a commitment, other nations are loath to make their own pledges.

Dr. Joseph Romm, physicist, former Energy Department official, and Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, views this as good news.

The new plan for Copenhagen makes the prospects for a successful international deal far more likely -- and at the same time increases the chance for Senate passage of the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill that Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen Lieberman (I-CT) are negotiating with the White House... Indeed, had leaders gone into Copenhagen without this recognition of the obvious and let the whole effort collapse under the weight of unrealistic expectations, that would have been all-but-fatal to the domestic bipartisan climate bill.

From a Copenhagen perspective, Romm is absolutely right, and it was a realistic move for the leaders to make, but I'm still troubled. If there's ever an issue we can't punt, this is it. Climate change faces a tipping point that most issues do not, and should have been higher on the U.S. legislative calendar. Having been placed so low on the agenda, I'm not sure that it will survive a midterm year, and that's a dangerous thing. December was an important deadline; we don't have long to act. The International Energy Agency said last week that for every year past 2010 we wait to take action, an additional $500 billion per year is added to the long-term cost of climate change's effects. And as scholar Bill McKibben has written,

To me, this environmental devastation stands as the single great crisis of our time, surpassing and encompassing all others. It is preeminent because it must be solved now, today, in this generation. Human hatred and division and strife and poverty must be solved now, too... But if they are not - and human beings have been slow to solve them over the centuries - they will be around for the next generation to solve... A hundred years from now, our descendants will not be trying to solve the greenhouse effect. We will solve it, or it will be too late to solve, and endurance will be the challenge.

An international treaty needs a strong U.S. presence if it is to have any force, and it wasn't going to have that presence by next month. Okay, fine, but what worries me is that, with the midterms looming, this hardly makes U.S. action more likely, and an early U.S.-less treaty is better than a late U.S.-less treaty. If Copenhagen is only punted a few months, and if Congress does indeed pass a serious clean energy bill before the midterms, than today's agreement is a good one and will make the eventual treaty matter in a way Kyoto never did. If, however, Congress doesn't act or the international agreement is punted into oblivion, than today might be the day historians point to as the decision that ended hope. I hope I'm overreacting. We shall see.