That's the argument Marin Cogan makes in her New Republic piece. Specifically, says Cogan, the supposed effort by Democrats to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine is a "manufactured controversy." She writes:

To figure out who was causing such agitation, I went searching for the proponents of the fairness doctrine. I looked at Obama's position–and it turns out that he doesn't want the policy reinstated. Then I called the array of Democratic congressmen who had been tagged by conservatives as doctrine proponents. But they all denied any intention to push for its reinstatement.

Speaking to Sen. Dick Durbin's office, Cogan got the reply:

"This is a completely made- up issue." Senator Durbin's press secretary says that Durbin has "no plans, no language, no nothing. He was asked in a hallway last year, he gave his personal view"--that the American people were served well under the doctrine--"and it's all been blown out of proportion."

Really? The Hill, that hotbed of conservative rabble-rousing, quoted Durbin in June 2007 thus:

“It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision.”

Durbin might have changed his tune since last year, but it's not like conservatives were clinging to straw men.

Cogan also cites a Human Events article from June of this year, in which Speaker Pelosi expressed support for the doctrine. Yet, writes Cogan:

Shortly after the Human Events piece surfaced, a Democratic leadership staffer called Pelosi's office to ask if the mention indicated that the speaker had plans to move on new legislation promoting the doctrine. Pelosi's staff, according to that aide, confirmed that she did not. And, even if Pelosi were to allow the legislation to move forward, another staffer says, she would not have the Democratic support to get it passed.

Which might be true. But here's what John Gizzi actually reported in Human Events:

“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?'” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation.

Again, that doesn't mean Pelosi will move legislation on it, but unless Gizzi misquoted her, that's a pretty firm confirmation of her views. Were conservatives supposed to ignore it?

But let's go back to that Hill piece by Alexander Bolton:

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she planned to “look at the legal and constitutional aspects of” reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

“I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit,” she said. “But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Feinstein said she is not yet ready to submit a formal proposal.

Democrats on the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee have also begun to focus on what they regard as a lack of diversity in talk radio, and may hold hearings later this year.

It's true that Obama has said he does not support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. And, to be sure, it would be a sign of sheer overreach were Democrats to try to force it through Congress. But a "manufactured controversy"? Hardly.

Penny Pritzker, who the Obama folks were eyeing for commerce secretary, has removed her name from the running, reports Politico's Mike Allen:

Chicago businesswoman Penny Pritzker, national campaign finance chairwoman for the Obama campaign, has taken herself out of the running to be secretary of commerce, a Democratic official said.

“She fears problems with her confirmation based on past business dealings,” the official said.

Via Geraghty, Jennifer Rubin has a rundown of Pritzker's "problems."

National Journal's Richard E. Cohen, who co-authors The Almanac of American Politics, takes a look today at redistricting -- which begins following the 2010 census -- as well as Democrats' House seat pick-ups by region since 2002.

Since the 2002 results of new redistricting lines in most states, House Republicans have lost 52 seats. Losses are spread across the nation, though they come disproportionately in the Northeast, where Republicans are down 20 seats. They lost 15 in the Midwest, 11 in the West, and six in the South.

Both parties will give special attention to state legislature elections in 2010 with an eye toward redistricting, as they do at the end of every decade. But as Cohen reminds us: things change, people change.

The election results since 2002 offer a reminder that House district lines that initially seemed favorable to one party can become less predictable in the midst of broader political changes or the appeal of individual candidates.

A new poll from Gallup shows that perhaps the GOP image hasn't hit bottom yet:

The Republican Party's image has gone from bad to worse over the past month, as only 34% of Americans in a Nov. 13-16 Gallup Poll say they have a favorable view of the party, down from 40% in mid-October. The 61% now holding an unfavorable view of the GOP is the highest Gallup has recorded for that party since the measure was established in 1992.

By contrast, the public's views of the Democratic Party remain as positive after the election as they were just prior to it. More than half of Americans, 55%, currently hold a favorable view of the Democratic Party and only 39% an unfavorable view, highly typical of views toward the Democrats all year.

So the question then is: What must the GOP do?

Most rank-and-file Republicans (59%) want to see the party move in a more conservative direction and another 28% want it to remain about the same. Only 12% would prefer to see the Republican Party become less conservative....

But right now, independents are not offering any clear guidance about what they want from Republicans. About a third say the party should become more conservative, an equal percentage say it should become less conservative, and just under one-quarter say it should stay the same.

GOP to independents: Gee, thanks.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the Clinton-for-SoS sideshow is entering its second week. This is the  Clintons after all, and this is what comes when you deal with them. But, for a candidate and a campaign team that rarely misstepped, is this one starting to get away from Obama?

I mean, is this the kind of coverage Obama wants going into his administration? From the NYT:

Washington continued to be gripped by the drama surrounding Mrs. Clinton's fate and the possibility that Mr. Obama might bring his toughest rival for the Democratic presidential nomination into his cabinet. Mr. Obama's advisers said the talks had gone well, but would not say if an agreement to avoid conflicts had been reached, as the Clinton camp has indicated.

Even if the guidelines for Mr. Clinton's future activities are on the verge of being resolved, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton must still decide if they can put the rancor of their long and bitter primary battle behind them. The two sides have a framework on “what he needs to do to satisfy the vetting concerns and that gives her an opportunity to consider the job on the merits,” said one person close to the Clintons.

Again, no doubt much of this is media-fueled. But in offering an olive-branch to the Clintons -- and leaking it to the press beforehand -- perhaps Obama helped create a drama he would rather have avoided.

Handy table for following the Minnesota Senate recount here.

There appears to be some disagreement between the two parties on whether the Dem caucus "sanctioned" Lieberman or not, reports the Politico:

“I don't view it as a sanction,” a relaxed and genial Lieberman told Politico as he walked through the Capitol. Instead, the Connecticut independent suggested he relinquished his seat on the committee voluntarily — “in the spirit of cooperation” — after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) asked him to help free up room on the committee for incoming senators....

A Reid spokesman “disagreed” with Lieberman's characterization but declined further comment. One senior Democratic aide, who reviewed the Lieberman resolution that passed 42-13 by secret ballot, also disputed Lieberman's contention, saying it explicitly called on him to “relinquish” the EPW seat.

“It's a sanction,” the aide said. “Someone who serves on a committee for 20 years just doesn't drop it in the spirit of cooperation. It was taken away from him — and that's obviously what happened here.”None of the senators emerging from Tuesday's closed-door meeting shared Lieberman's interpretation. Some were appalled that he had gotten off so easily, but none expressed the opinion that the EPW action wasn't intended to send a message to Lieberman.Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, who wanted Lieberman stripped of his Homeland Security post, decried the loss of the panel seat as “a slap on the wrist.”

From Reid Wilson:

In a surprise move, the House Democratic Caucus has stripped its longest-serving member of a top committee post in favor of a more liberal challenger. California Rep. Henry Waxman topped Michigan Rep. John Dingell by a 137-122 vote in the battle over the House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to a top Democratic aide.

Not that it matters at all. From the AP:

Republican John McCain has defeated President-elect Barack Obama in Missouri - the last state to be decided in the 2008 presidential election.

McCain's narrow victory over Obama breaks a bellwether streak in which Missourians had picked the winning presidential candidate in every election since 1956.

With all jurisdictions reporting complete but unofficial results, McCain led Obama by 3,632 votes Wednesday out of more than 2.9 million cast - a margin of 0.12 percentage points.

In the Headlines

"Discussions With Clintons as Obama Creates Team" (Peter Baker and Helene Cooper, New York Times) - Former President Bill Clinton has agreed to all of the conditions sought by President-elect Barack Obama's transition team to eliminate potential conflicts of interest if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes secretary of state, people close to the Clintons said Wednesday.

"Big Three on the brink" (J. Taylor Rushing and Silla Brush, The Hill) - An emergency effort to send billions of dollars in aid to the ailing American carmakers fizzled on Wednesday, as Senate Democrats failed to strike a compromise with Republicans and the White House.

"Weakened House GOP moves right as it picks new leaders" (David Lightman, McClatchy) - Republicans in the House of Representatives on Wednesday gave their bloc a decidedly more conservative — and outspoken — tone, as they voted in new leaders who have reputations as sharp-edged partisans.

"Minnesota Recount is Underway in Senate Race" (AP) - City and county workers across Minnesota began a laborious recount Wednesday of more than 2.9 million ballots in the tight U.S. Senate contest between incumbent Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken.

On the Morning Shows

Fox and Friends - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the election: "I think it's always very difficult when you're from the same party as the party in the White House and you have an economic crisis. ... The cards were stacked against McCain without any doubt."

On poking fun at Obama's "scrawny" arms and legs on the stump: "I've talked to since then and he's told me he's going to build a big gymnasium in the White House to bulk up and that I should him bulk up. And I said only if he helps me play basketball."

On joining an Obama administration: "I've made it clear that I will in everyway possible the administration to be successful. So whatever they need, I'm there. I've also made it clear that I want to finish my term as governor because there's a lot of different challenges to get the state out of crisis. ... before I make any move, the next move that I make I'm going to go and say to Maria [Shriver], 'Maria, you tell me what to do.'"

Morning Joe - Sen. Jim Webb, on the auto bailout: "We should be stepping up in some form with the right protections to help them get through this period just as we've helped other industries get through it."

On Afghanistan and Obama's proposal to send more troops: "What needs to happen ... is for us to insist on a clearly articulated strategy, which we failed to do before we went into Iraq."