If it wasn't for disappointment  

Venkat makes the point that the chief justice doesn't have all that much more power than the other justices, and that it should be worth elevating Thomas if it gets a new moderate justice on the court. I agree in principle, but I also think there might be some important intangibles here. To outsiders it may seem like the power to decide who writes opinions isn't all that important, but inside this is an enormous power -- it allows the chief justice to control not just the way the ideas are framed, but also the historical significance of the participants. And my guess is that history and legacy are overriding concerns for those who sit on the court.

Meanwhile Matthew Gross argues for Dean as DNC chairman. I've been pretty nostalgic for Dean over the past few weeks too (yes, even before the election), but I think the man is probably less important than his methods: specifically, I'd like to see the Democrats modulate and refine the grassroots and internet approach that helped him win so many supporters early on.