Politics

Election 2008: The Home Stretch Obama Landslide

pO157.

Posted to Politics on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:32:28 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

UPDATE: Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) won the presidency of the United States today in a historic landslide, carrying all of the Kerry states as well as capturing multiple states that have trended Republican in recent elections, including (as of this update) Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico, and running up electoral vote totals that should come close to equaling, or even surpass, those which Bill Clinton produced in the 1990s.

Original story follows: After almost two years the Election 2008 cycle will end today with voters choosing either of Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) or John McCain (R-AZ) for the highest office in the land. Candidates Reps. Bob Barr (I-GA), Cynthia McKinney (G-GA), Rev. Chuck Baldwin (C-FL), or Ralph Nader (I-CT) are also on the ballot but are not expected to win. Also at issue is control of the House and Senate with some projections calling for the Democrats to retain close to 300 seats in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

Please join us for discussion, both here and in chat, as the polls open on Tuesday, while the votes are counted, and as the aftermath is debated.

McCain and the GOP have spent a significant amount of time and money in the Keystone state recently, as its electoral votes are believed to hold a key to the election. Many argue that McCain has made missteps along the way, such as the appointment of the relative newcomer Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) to his ticket. Meanwhile, the economy is believed to be dragging him down partially because of his association with the party in power. On the other hand, claims of Obama's inexperience have followed him since the primary election. Conservatives and independents are also wary of single party rule and redistribution of income.

Still, most polls currently have Obama with what appears to be a commanding lead. Senator John McCain enters election day as the strong underdog, forecast down in almost all battleground states and fighting to retain control of normally safer areas such as Montana. Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com is giving McCain less than a 4% chance to win and projecting Obama will get 340 electoral votes. RealClearPolitics aggregation of polls reports that Obama has a 7 point national lead, and the Intrade markets are heavily favoring Obama as well. Nevertheless, nothing is certain - polls have been wrong in the past, and Republicans can look to history and hope for a late comeback for McCain similar to Reagan's victory in 1980.

Voter turnout is expected to reach record amounts across the nation, and lines for "early voting" are already reported to be hours long. It is unsure how many problems there will be on election day, with issues such as unfair voting purges alleged. One thing is for sure, while McCain is running against a perceived view of him as the continuation of the Bush administration, the President has not been seen or heard from lately on the campaign trail.

With the agenda for the next President set, all that remains to do is register and count the votes. In the background will also be concerns over the accuracy of the process and potential changes for the future.

So, now's the time to make your last minute appeals for your favorite candidate, let us know how early voting has gone and/or voting is going in your district, rail against the liberal media and biased pollsters, or complain about how the man is suppressing your vote and working to steal the election by discriminating against convicted felons. If you're still not sure who to vote for, or don't know the positions of the candidates for your local races, don't forget to check out the League of Women Voters non-partisan guide to candidate positions. No matter what, make sure that sometime on Tuesday you find your local polling site (assuming you're registered) and vote!

Tags: written by pO157, written by port1080, edited by 1fastdog, edited by port1080, election 2008, Barack Obama, John McCain, politics, news (all tags)

This story: 201 comments (8 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
3

Re: Obama in a walk, maybe.

Jackkeefe.

Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:30:34 PM EST

5.00 (interesting, medium)

If I were betting on the outcome, I would say Obama wins both the popular and electoral college vote rather easily.   But the polls have been so strange that I don't think it is out of the question that McCain win the Presidency by eking out an Electoral College victory.
Jim Geraghty at National Review Online has been fixated on the partisan breakdown of the voters reflected in many of the polls that show Obama with large leads.  Since 1974, the largest difference in party id was 4 points in the 1996 election.  In 2006, a blowout year for Democrats, the difference in party identification by voters only favored Democrats by 3 points.  Yet almost all of the polls show the difference in party identification favoring Democrats approaching, if not exceeding 10 points.  Obviously, if we are on the cusp of a historic realignment in favor of Democrats, than Obama will win easily.  If , however, the partisan breakdown is much closer to historical norms than the polling indicates, than the election should be closer.  Given the enthusiasm gap between Republican and Democratic voters, I don't think its impossible that Republican voters are less likely to deal with pollsters that their  Democratic counterparts.
The polling results in the Democratic primaries demonstrate just how much trouble the pollsters are having in accurately predicting the outcome of state elections.  The results were all over the place, with numerous instances of the Real Clear Politics final poll average missing the difference between Clinton and Obama by more than 10%.   For instance, in New Hampshire, the final RCP poll average had Obama winning by 8.3 points yet he lost by 2.6%.  The final California polls had Obama  winning by 1.2, he lost by 9.6%.  In Ohio and Pennsylvania , Obama  finished 3% worse.  In Missouri, Obama was 7% better relative to Clinton than expected.  In Georgia and Virginia, he Obama out performed the polls by well over 10%.  
Maybe the pollsters have learned from their grievous mistakes this primary season, but I don't think its impossible to believe that McCain can win enough of the red states that Bush won and maybe even Pennsylvania, to win the election.

8

Obama Wins!

port1080.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:47:45 AM EST

5.00 (telling)

...the vote in Dixville Notch, New Hampshire.  The town always votes first in the nation, at midnight.  With 21 voters, they're not going to tip the election either way, BUT - they went Obama 15 to McCain's 6.  That's the first time a Democrat has carried the town since 1968.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

11

Read only if McCain loses

pO157.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:20:42 AM EST

5.00 (intriguing)

To start the Wednesday morning QBing early:

If McCain loses, why?

A) Should I retract my previous statements that said "nobody votes for a candidate based on a VP choice" due to the Palin fiasco?
B) Was his election inevitably doomed to failure due to the economy (his poll #s didn't tank until about the time the markets took a dump)?
C) Was his election inevitably doomed due to the disgust of American's for the GOP's hyper religious shenanigans?
D) Other.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

13

^ 11

Simpler Answers

uncarved block.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 01:02:48 PM EST

5.00 (scholarly)

    It's also possible that he just ran a bad campaign. While it would have been difficult to get too much attention during the Obama vs Clinton competition, his staff seemed to believe that whoever won would be so weakened that it wouldn't matter-- yet many of the old hands in the Beltway could have told them that this was a bad idea, if history was any guide. This was probably where the lack of conservative credentials hurt him most; had McCain been in better graces with the conservative media, he could have gotten a lot more free air time than he did, until it was too late. The campaign staff also seems to have misread that this was shaping up as more of a "vote for" than "vote against" election, something made abundantly clear with the Palin pick.* There's going to be a lot of partisan excuses tossed around if and when McCain loses, but I bet when the postmortems start airing on C-SPAN in a month or two, the general tone will be that one side simply ran a better campaign than the other.
     As for your third point, I'd argue it really didn't make a lick of difference. Bush and Rove worked that angle for the last eight years, and unless you'd been living under a rock, there was already plenty of evidence to render a verdict. There was nothing like Judge Moore trying to shoehorn a two and a half ton statue into a courtroom this cycle, that's for sure.
     To make one general point, it seems as if Republicans haven't figured out yet that the constant attack political style is wearing thin. The economic crisis heightened the point, but I would posit that it's been on the way out ever since Katrina, and that the "crush the Democrats first" wing of the party just hasn't noticed yet. Whether or not they get the message (I have serious doubts) will only become apparent next month.

    *I also believe that nobody votes based on the VP pick-- at least not directly. But Palin, as I've mentioned earlier, gave Democrats a reason to "vote against", even if they were a bit leery on the "vote for" part of the ticket. It also gave a lot of moderate Republicans pause, which is never a good thing when you're trying to drive up turnout.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

24

^ 11

Re: Read only if McCain loses

keta.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 04:06:29 PM EST

5.00 (prescient, astute)

E) All of the above, including a really, really lousy campaign, his association to a really, really lousy two-term administration, his hawkishness in the face of a nation really, really tired of the Iraqi Clusterfuck, and not least, his really, really public loss of integrity as he groped in futile search what he thought the American people wanted to hear.

Of course, most of the GOP will dismiss the loss on the basis that "McCain wasn't a real Republican."

29

^ 11

The economy and he couldn't shake ...

MayorBob.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 04:41:35 PM EST

5.00 (compelling, good)

... the connection to George Bush probably killed his candidacy.  The Palin pick was a flesh wound compared to the fact that McCain couldn't possibly detach himself from the worrisome aspects of the Bush administration.  There were a couple of things he might have done to keep the boat afloat this year:

  1.  Pick Romney to run with him.  Yeah, the ticket becomes two white guys and loses that faux-feminist tinge Palin brought with her.  But Romney cleans up well, has a ton more executive experience and business experience than Palin, McCain, Obama, and Biden combined.

  2.  Vote against the bailout.  If he really wanted to distance himself from the Wall Street/mortgage meltdown and the powers that be's inability to sense anything was particularly wrong, this would have been a masterstroke.  In one fell swoop, he could have said "look at how mavericky I am, I'm refusing to throw good money after bad."  He could have stated that, once the smoke has cleared, he would work with Congress to appoint a special prosecutor to make sure the fuckheads that ruined the economy pay and pay hard.

  3.  Get off the Barack Obama palling around with terrorists talking points and focus on what Barack has said recently, like within the past five years, that sounds socialistic.  And opt to simply ask if you want your wealth spread around without all the socialistic talking points.  Make your case without name calling or labeling and let the electorate figure things out.

  4.  America didn't need the constant repetitions of the "I was a POW" soundbite.  Anyone who was unaware of that fact probably couldn't find their way to a polling booth with a GPS.  Focus on the work you've done to set yourself apart from the average Republican Senator (cough-McCain Feingold-cough).

Well that's what he could have done.  Don't know if that would have won him this election, but doing things the way they were done didn't do him any favors.

Tending to final details.

135

^ 11

You didn't fail me, I failed you (because of you)

3fingerspointback.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 07:44:05 PM EST

4.50 (interesting, interesting)

I think Palin sank the campaign.  Talking Points Memo put up a pretty little Flash app that aggregates conservatives' distaste for her plus alleged changes in newspaper opinions.  I don't know if anyone ever ran a poll that flat-out asked if the selection of Palin caused anyone to switch their vote, so I'll have to go the heaps-of-anecdote route and link to the Something Awful thread about members' families' opinions on the elections.  Lots of bits about hating Palin, even from people who had been traditionally Republican.

McCain's campaign was also not helped by the right wing echo chamber.  A news website could run a story about Obama, and the bulk of critical responses would not echo McCain's opinion, but rather lunatic accusations about religion or birth certificates.  While McCain never made or believed these accusations, it could have done more to defuse them and take control of the conversaion.  Here's all he had to work into his speeches:

I know that many of you are scared of my opponent.  He has managed to convince millions of Americans that it is in their best interests to give up more of their freedoms and more of their money in order to advance the common good.  He has bought air time on our networks to come into your living rooms and sell his left-wing ideology whether you like it or not.  It seems like he is all-powerful.  It seems like he has all the connections.  I have even had some supporters come to these rallies, and say to me that they are worried that he is the Antichrist.  It is that scary for some Americans.

Now I have served in the Senate with Barack Obama for almost four years.  You know, that's the the extent of his National political service.  I have seen him at work on legislation, and I have even worked together with him on legislation.  And I can tell you with all the authority I have that Barack Obama is not the Antichrist.  He's not involved in any grand conspiracies.  He has no special mystical power over people.  He is just a charismatic young man who still has his head filled up with unworkable ideas about what we should do with our country, and my friends, we are not going to let him do it.

Look at that.  Denial that Obama's the Antichrist, denial that he's a secret Muslim (without bringing religion into the picture), plus a bit of piss-taking at the aura.  And at no time did he actually have to say something nice about Obama.  I bet if McCain had talked like that earlier in the campaign, a few of the ranters may have come up with more convincing arguments against his opponent.

(is 3fingerspointback)

14

^ 11

Re: Read only if McCain loses

wetkarma.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST

4.00 (compelling)

The Palin pick more than anything else caused me to question my support/likability for McCain. I still can't get my mind around it although others who 'lean conservative' like gerry seem to have thought it to be a good idea.

I think a solid argument could have been made, had he chosen someone like Mitt Romney, that with the economy in the tank and America at war, you need an experienced crisis management team with proven results. When the economic news started truly swirling down the drain, McCain came across as clueless (if not more) than Obama. If your argument was that Obama's too inexperienced, then clearly McCain didn't have the right experience to deal with the problem either.

...
still can't believe the Palin pick.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

87

^ 14

Re: Read only if McCain loses

JimmyHavok.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:18:43 PM EST

3.50 (personal, interesting)

others who 'lean conservative' like gerry seem to have thought it to be a good idea.

If McCain had chosen Muktada al Sadr, gerry would have hailed it as a stroke of genius, sure to bring out the vote for him.

16

^ 11

Re: Read only if McCain loses

pO157.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:06:07 PM EST

2.00 (forgetful)

Based on the fact that everybody has read and replied to this post, I assume the general consensus is McCain is going down?

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

21

^ 16

Re: Read only if McCain loses

Lou.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:50:57 PM EST

4.50 (scary, counterintuitive)

I still think he's gonna win.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

19

^ 16

Re: Read only if McCain loses

T Slothrop.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:32:41 PM EST

none

I don't think anyone - including John McCain himself - thinks he's going to win the popular vote.

He still has a VERY slight chance of winning the Electoral vote, though.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

12

^ 11

Re: Read only if McCain loses

port1080.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:49:44 AM EST

none

A) Should I retract my previous statements that said "nobody votes for a candidate based on a VP choice" due to the Palin fiasco?
B) Was his election inevitably doomed to failure due to the economy (his poll #s didn't tank until about the time the markets took a dump)?
C) Was his election inevitably doomed due to the disgust of American's for the GOP's hyper religious shenanigans?

I think it was sort of a combination of all three.  I think that all other things being equal, the conservative morality stuff still plays pretty well.  The problem was that all other things weren't equal - people cared more about the economy this year than anything.  If McCain had come through with a good, coherent economic message and picked a VP candidate that was middle of the road, I think he could have pulled one out.  In the last two elections there weren't a whole lot of undecided voters, so the rallying the base strategy that Bush & Rove employed made sense.  This time around, I think that a lot of people were put off my Obama's inexperience (I know I was, initially) and were open to be persuaded.  Instead of trying to appeal to those folks, McCain basically told them "fuck you".  I don't see how that was ever a winning strategy.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

25

^ 12

Re: Read only if McCain loses

keta.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 04:08:36 PM EST

5.00 (succinct, brilliant)

Instead of trying to appeal to those folks, McCain basically told them "fuck you".  I don't see how that was ever a winning strategy.

Bush/Cheney kinda' wore out that tactic.

30

^ 11

Re: Read only if McCain loses

Jackkeefe.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 05:10:02 PM EST

none

I don't think there's any doubt that that the Wall Street bailout doomed McCain, whose chances  were slim enough to begin with.  Immediately before the bailout process started,  McCain was riding a wave that brought him from 7-8 points behind to a small (2-3 points) lead.  Then, when  disaster struck, the politically toxic President Bush came out of hiding and dominated the news.  McCain compounded his problems with the "I won't debate, I will debate" flip-flop that made him look weak.   His poll numbers immediately plummeted and remained  basically the same through the debates until today.  No Republican could win in a panic atmosphere with the public primarily blaming an unpopular Republican President.

I really don't think V.P. picks matter that much, but I think that is one of the postr election themes we will hear  from a media that is incredibly hostile to Palin.  I've not seen any actual evidence that her pick hurt McCain.  
Certainly, the polling trends I discussed above don't support the argument that Palin hurt McCain. In fact,  Rasmussen released a poll today indicating that she is actually more popular with Republican voters  than McCain. When considering Palin, it's important to remember that she' energized  a distinctly unhappy Republican base.   I've heard all sorts of anecdotal evidence of Republicans voting for Sarah rather than McCain and the fact that her rallies tend to dwarf McCain's in size supports this.  While she's certainly unpopular with a large segment of voters, I don't believe many of those voters would have voted for McCain anyway.  Of course, if McCain loses Minnesota by 2 points or less, he'll probably kick himself for not picking Pawlenty, but that ain't gonna happen.

I don't think the social issues matter much either.   This a 401K election, in that the middle and upper middle class voters who are typically sympathetic to Republicans are voting Democratic out of anger over what has happened to the economy and their retirement nest egg.

35

^ 30

polls, palin

1fastdog.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 07:32:45 PM EST

5.00 (informative, contextual)

I've not seen any actual evidence that her pick hurt McCain.

Here ya go:
A new national poll suggests Sarah Palin may be hurting Republican presidential nominee John McCain more than she's helping him
 A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Sunday indicates McCain's running mate is growing less popular among voters and may be costing him a few crucial percentage points in the race for the White House.

Fifty-seven percent of likely voters questioned in the poll said Palin does not have the personal qualities a president should have. That's up 8 points since September.

Fifty-three percent say she does not agree with them on important issues. That's also higher than September....
....The unfavorable numbers for Palin, Alaska's governor, also have been growing. They are 8 points higher in the current poll than in early October, and they're twice as high as they were when McCain announced his running mate in late August
-------------------------------
A growing number of voters have concluded that Senator John McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, is not qualified to be vice president, weighing down the Republican ticket in the last days of the campaign, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job, up nine percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president, and those voters broadly favor Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee.

And in a possible indication that the choice of Ms. Palin has hurt Mr. McCain's image, voters said they had much more confidence in Mr. Obama to pick qualified people for his administration than they did in Mr. McCain.
While a majority viewed Ms. Palin as unqualified for the vice presidency, roughly three-quarters of voters saw Mr. Obama's running mate, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, as qualified for the job. The increase in the number of voters who said Ms. Palin was not prepared was driven almost entirely by Republicans and independents.
-------------------------------------
Fallout continues from McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for vice president, with 52 percent saying it weakens their confidence in his judgment.....
....INDIES - On all these, the views of swing-voting independents are critical. They see Obama as more optimistic by 57-31 percent and as better-suited temperamentally by 52-36 percent. The Palin pick makes them less rather than more confident in McCain's judgment by 51-39 percent, while the Biden selection makes them more rather than less confident in Obama by 50-33 percent.
OTHERS - There are other differences among groups. Views of the Palin selection, naturally, are highly partisan. But majorities of moderates (62 percent), young adults (59 percent) and women (56 percent) all say it makes them less confident in McCain's judgment. (More women than men say so.) So do near majorities, 48 percent, of white women and married women alike.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

77

^ 35

Re: polls, palin

Jackkeefe.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:41:46 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

An unnamed emailer had this posted on National Review's Campaign spot, and it provides more specificity than the general polls you cited above.

"First the most significant finding of this year's poll. The media will undoubtedly focus on the fact that 60 percent of voters expressed doubts about Gov. Palin being ready to take over as president at short notice. But there is no evidence that this fact actually influenced people's decision-making in the voting booth. When people were asked if Palin's presence on the ticket was an important factor in their decision, 60 percent answered yes, 33 percent no. But of the 60 percent that said yes, 56 percent ended up voting McCain versus 43 percent Obama. By comparison, of the 33 percent that said no, only 33 percent voted McCain versus 64 percent Obama. Conclusion: on balance, people who thought Palin's presence on the ticket was important were more likely to vote McCain by a significant margin."

31

^ 30

Re: Read only if McCain loses

port1080.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 05:31:51 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

In fact,  Rasmussen released a poll today indicating that she is actually more popular with Republican voters  than McCain.

That really doesn't matter that much, though, I think (at least if they're defining Republican voters in terms of party of registration - i.e. is the person they're polling a registered Republican or a registered Democrat).  Democratic registration has historically always outnumbered Republican registration - Republicans have gotten their wins since Nixon by grabbing the votes of conservative Democrats.  If Republicans voted 100% Republican and Democrats 100% for Democrats, and Independents split down the middle, we would have had single party government for the last thirty years.  The question, then, is how well did Palin play among conservative independents and conservative Democrats.  I don't know that I've seen any polls that specifically addressed this, but I know that overall she has polled poorly among independents and among Democrats as a whole.  So, even if she increased the enthusiasm of the registered Republican base, if she alienated those conservative independents and Democrats, then she would be a net loss rather than a net gain.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

22

A fine morning in Maine

Lou.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:54:26 PM EST

5.00 (wicked, atmospheric)

It was a good day to vote.  I had a very short walk down to the town hall where there was already a considerable line.  Almost everyone was cheerful.  It took a while to vote, but no problems.

On the way out, I filled out two postcards to be sent to our state legislators supporting gay marriage and got serious glares from the crazy dude who wanders around town reading the 2nd Amendment out loud to no one.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

23

Oops

port1080.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 03:32:17 PM EST

5.00 (foreboding, telling, bidden)

A little funny - someone from Biden's campaign headquarters here in DE just called to remind me to get out and vote.  Apparently they neglected to update their phone listings, because the caller ID came up "Biden For President".  I think that perhaps Obama would have some disagreements with that notion...

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

27

Re: Election 2008: The Home Stretch

keta.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 04:14:28 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

Well, I'm Canadian and I still managed to vote for Obama...six times!

Gotta' support those fellow commies!

33

Re: Election 2008: The Home Stretch

permazorch.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 07:28:10 PM EST

5.00 (ruddy)

I voted at 8:15, and wore my tight, red jeans (a salute to the punk rockers of the mid-1990's Czech Republic). Of course I voted for Obama because I'm a communist/socialist, as Jesus/Buddha would prefer.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

55

Allow me to be the first

Lou.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:11:15 AM EST

5.00 (gay, first, beloved)

I am so so glad Obama won.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

56

^ 55

Sometimes the good guys win.

MayorBob.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:31:39 AM EST

5.00 (classy, patriotic)

I hope he conducts his administration with the same class and intelligence he ran his campaign.  Damn, but this is indeed a great country!

Tending to final details.

57

^ 55

Re: Allow me to be the first

laputanmachine.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:49:18 AM EST

5.00 (rotund, bulky)

You and the bulk of the human race. :-D

58

McCain, McCain, McCain...

pO157.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:36:08 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

The man took the GOP nomination 8 years too late. I know I keep saying this, but during his concession speech I really had to wonder what it would have been like if he won in 2000.

The man had honor and class. He would have gone into Afghanistan, found that asshole Bin laden, strung him up and made sure the job would have been done. He probably would have never let spending get to the insane amount BushCo has brought it to, and the abortion that is the unchecked expansion of the Patriot Act might not have happened on his watch.

One can hope.

Let's do the time warp guys. What do you think the world would be like had McCain defeated Bush in the primary 8 years ago?

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

59

^ 58

Re: McCain, McCain, McCain...

permazorch.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:47:27 AM EST

4.00 (astute)

That concession speech did have a helluva lot of class. That's the McCain I wanted to know. It wasn't quite as spectacular as Hillary's, but still, none too shabby.
It reminded me of 2000, too.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

62

^ 59

Re: McCain, McCain, McCain...

pO157.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:53:13 AM EST

4.00 (sighted)

The man is an American hero, and it is a shame he went out like he did. He ran a terrible campaign and let it be hijacked by a bunch of base pandering extremists who wanted to run a win by division strategy.

He could have been President. Of course the stock market crash had a major impact, but I still argue that this is not a campaign Obama won, but rather one that McCain lost.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

67

^ 62

Re: McCain, McCain, McCain...

JimmyHavok.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:32:33 AM EST

4.50 (dismembered, compelling)

If McCain hadn't let the Rovians fuck him over, he could have made a fight out of it, but I don't think his win would have been guaranteed.

Disremember all you want, but Obama ran a perfect campaign.

63

^ 62

Re: McCain, McCain, McCain...

thefadd.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:02:37 AM EST

4.00 (astute, astute)

Was it just man or was that man damn happy to concede?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

69

^ 58

Re: McCain, McCain, McCain...

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:12:23 AM EST

3.50 (limp, elliptic)

McCain's been to Asia, yet he couldn't kick Barry's ass.

What do you make of that?

60

Off topic comment: Jackson

pO157.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:50:59 AM EST

5.00 (emasculating)

What is up with every single major network showing Jesse "Cut his nuts off" Jackson crying during the Obama rally? CBS kept cutting over to show him prominently during the rally.

The guy has some nerve even showing up. He is lucky Obama's handlers even let him on the premises. If he had said the above garbage he spewed three months from now he would be deserving of a visit from the Secret Service and possibly criminal charges.

Then again, maybe there is a reason he is all shaken up. Maybe he realizes that his marketing niche of selling victim status to folks is gone since Obama won the highest office in the land.

I just can't believe there wasn't an actual civil rights hero to show at that rally instead of that media attention magnet.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

64

^ 60

Re: Off topic comment: Jackson

delete me.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:03:00 AM EST

5.00 (funny)

Of course he's crying. Pretty impossible to cut the nuts off some fellow that just got an increase in his Secret Service protection.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

68

Re: Election 2008: Obama Landslide

gerrymander.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 04:12:59 AM EST

5.00 (funny)

Well, it's official: I was as wrong in in picking the general election winner as I was the primary winner.

Maybe I'll be just as wrong about my "permanent recession" prediction in case of an Obama victory. (Which I guess would be a win of "hope" over "change".)

85

The gay vote

profwhat.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:43:56 PM EST

5.00 (fabulous, interesting)

According to the exit polls, 27% of gays (people who answered "yes" to "Are You Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual?") voted for McCain.  This is one of the highest turnouts among gays for a Republican candidate in my memory.  Bush got 25% in 2000, and 23% in 2004.

Contrast this with other traditionally-identified minority groups: blacks were 4% for McCain, Latinos 32%, Asians 35%.  Note that these are all decreases from what Bush got in 2004 (he got in the 10% range for blacks, the 40% range for Latinos and Asians).

95

^ 85

Gay Isn't Like The Other Demographics

thefadd.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:04:55 PM EST

4.00 (novel)

That just means Larry Craig has inspired more Republicans to come out of the (water) closet.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

96

The Speeches

thefadd.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:11:00 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

Both the concession speech and the acceptance speech were pretty fabulous and near awe inspiring.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

97

^ 96

Re: The Speeches

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:18:42 PM EST

4.00 (tetchy, platitudinous)

Both speeches were utterly devoid of content - Obama's was full of platitudes and with smatterings of confused pseudo-policy.  What was awe-inspiring about them?

98

^ 97

Re: The Speeches

thefadd.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:37:21 PM EST

none

Eh, these aren't policy screeds, they're big picture things. McCain was exceptionally gracious and showed a lot of that joie de vivre he used to before he started to fear having to spend 4-8 years with Palin. Plenty of people in the press have observed being very moved by Obama's speech--based on the measured tone of everything he does, I expect him to lead with broad strokes and pick his policy battles A LOT more for the first four years than maybe others are expecting.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

99

^ 98

Re: The Speeches

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 12:46:53 AM EST

4.50 (unimpressed, pitiful)

What about Obama's speech was, "near awe inspiring"?

102

^ 99

Re: The Speeches

ms sue.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 01:44:52 PM EST

4.50 (enraptured, encouraging)

Ah, zyx, you're such a party pooper. Can't you be swept away for just a minute or two? We won't laugh at you.  We promise. And speaking of promises, I was inspired by Obama's keeping his promise to get a presidential pooch. Weren't you?

103

^ 102

Re: The Speeches

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST

4.00 (caucasian, rational, sneering)

We won't laugh at you
You completely miss the point: I am laughing (figuratively, of course, because it's a mirthless, rueful sort of laughter) at all the people who are "swept away" by Obama. I think many of those people have in the past sneered at, for example, devout Christians who have proclaimed that Bush was chosen by God to lead American through troubling times. But the adoring Obama masses are no better than those pathetic Christians.

I have seen photos of people who cried - actually burst into tears of joy - when they met Obama. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with those people? I have encountered otherwise intelligent people who are seemingly mesmerized and motivated by Obama speeches that are, upon a plain reading of the words, utterly devoid of content. Again, I wonder what the hell is wrong with those people? Why must so many people cast aside rational thought when it comes to formulation of public policy?

A significant reason that we had a second four years of the Bush Administration was because of voters who had an irrational, vague, unthinking fear of terrorism - we've now been given a presidency based in large part on an irrational, simpering belief in "hope." It sickens me.

106

^ 103

Re: The Speeches

T Slothrop.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 03:44:51 PM EST

5.00 (challenging)

You guys can call zyx's take "grim" and "sneering" all you want, but I suspect that many of us privately agree with at least some of what he wrote here. The utterly irrational reaction to Obama doesn't "sicken" me, but I DO think it is serious cause for concern. It is this kind of popular reaction that can hold the seeds of a personality cult. I always thought Americans were too sophisticated to ever fall into that trap, but I am no longer as convinced of that as I once was.

Go ahead and slap negative descriptors all over this post, too. But personally I'll have to see this guy walk on water before I'll believe he can do it. And up until a few weeks ago I would have thought that most of you would have agreed with me.

Now I don't know what to think.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

117

^ 106

Re: The Speeches

thefadd.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:06:07 PM EST

5.00 (helpful)

Your comparison is somewhat apt--if two years ago you'd asked the vast majority of people whether they expected more to see someone walk on water or a black President of the US, they might very well have said "walk on water," so in that sense he's a very transformational figure for a lot of people. If you aren't racist (which I don't think you or zyx are) and you aren't met by a lot of racism (don't really know) then I can see where it wouldn't be that big of a deal but some people are really affected by it, "rational" or no.

I don't see the cult of personality because his message is consistently if something's going to change, you people have to do it not me. It's very inspirational for a lot of people to hear that from a President versus say, "go shopping," and I don't think it lends itself to a cult of personality type issue which is generally marked by, "I'm so great, we're #1."

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

140

^ 117

Re: The Speeches

Chronon.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:12:27 PM EST

none

I certainly agree that he seems very mindful to not let his ego get too involved.  He has seemed very conscientious of keeping attention on the issues and trying to get people used to the idea of working for the betterment of the country.  I don't think he can be faulted for people's reactions.  I certainly haven't noticed him urging this sort of thing on.

151

^ 106

Let's see what earned Ken my sneering rating.

MayorBob.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 08:55:46 AM EST

4.71 (inspiring, awesome, exacting)

Ah, yes, here's the relevant passage:

"I think many of those people have in the past sneered at, for example, devout Christians who have proclaimed that Bush was chosen by God to lead American through troubling times. But the adoring Obama masses are no better than those pathetic Christians.."
In two sentences, Ken managed to build up those "devout Christians" and then labeled them as "pathetic" and also labeled the people in Grant Park and around the nation who were listening to a speech from their newly elected president as pathetic along with the pathetic Christians.  I found Obama's speech to be a particularly gracious, even-handed, just right for the occasion speech.  If you were to print the text of the speech and read it removed from the context of the moment, it probably wouldn't have been particularly awe-inspiring.  But, given the context, that of the victory speech of the first black to win the presidency in the history of a nation which spent almost the first century of its existence with a significant portion of it practicing slavery and, which has wrestled consistently with the demons of race over the rest of its history, it was awe-inspiring.  Frankly, speaking as one white Boomer, I thought I'd probably never live to see what I saw on Tuesday evening and, for me, it was an inspiring moment.  I realize you have your concerns over what an Obama administration will mean for you and that might drive you to step up to the plate to defend what Ken was saying here.  But for me what he posted was world-class, look down the nose, condescendingly sneering.

Tending to final details.

153

^ 151

I hadn't even bothered...

T Slothrop.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:17:18 PM EST

none

...to look at who rated the original post.

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Mayor. I do freely admit that zyx's post was condescending. However too much of the behavior I saw in Grant Park and in front of the White House was so cringe-inducing as to be a fair target for condescension.

This actually has very little to do with my opinion of Obama's policies and what they will mean to me or anyone else. If I had voted for the man myself I would still find what I saw Tuesday night to be puzzling, disturbing, and downright embarrassing.

He's a politician. Nothing less, but certainly nothing more. He is not going to be the next Lincoln or Washington or FDR or even the left's version of Reagan. He is going to be reviled while in office no matter what he does, first by the people who didn't vote for him, and later by many of the people who did. The world economy is toast for the next  three to five years, and there will be very little any American president can do about it.

Note that the preceding paragraph could just as easily have been applied to McCain had he won. However I don't recall seeing the kind of irrational reaction toward McCain at his campaign events even from the staunch Republican base that was all-too-common at Obama's.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

157

^ 153

On the cult-y continuum

Lou.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:55:09 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

However I don't recall seeing the kind of irrational reaction toward McCain at his campaign events even from the staunch Republican base that was all-too-common at Obama's.

Oh you saw it, especially when Palin was in the house...it was just in a different form.  Where the Obama folks may have been guilty of a hope filled joy, the McCainiacs presented a vicious, hate filled joy.

Mostly where the Obama folks smiled and wept, the McCain folks snarled.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

158

^ 153

Re: I hadn't even bothered...

thefadd.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:55:11 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

However I don't recall seeing the kind of irrational reaction toward McCain at his campaign events even from the staunch Republican base that was all-too-common at Obama's.

Sure you did...but it was directed at Obama.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

160

^ 153

selective recall

JimmyHavok.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:40:20 PM EST

5.00 (recognitory)

I don't recall seeing the kind of irrational reaction toward McCain at his campaign events even from the staunch Republican base that was all-too-common at Obama's.

Really?  Perhaps you consider the adulation McCain was showered with rational.  Of course, that's over now!  LOSER!!!!

And what about the Palin fanbase?  What was your reaction to them?  Were they rational?

170

^ 160

Re: selective recall

T Slothrop.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:20:58 AM EST

5.00 (astute, astute)

I never saw anyone burst into tears at the touch of McCain's hand. Feel free to provide counterexamples but it must not have been terribly common or both sides of the media would have been all over it.

In any event, I don't consider adulation of ANY politician to be rational. Someone once said that anyone who wants to be President probably shouldn't be, and I believe there is a lot of truth in that. Anyone who is egomaniacal enough to run the gauntlet that our election process has become is not likely to be someone worthy of anyone's adulation. The crying Obama fans scared me, and so did the neanderthal nose-pickers at the Palin rallies. Neither of those groups represent what I consider to be the rational, informed citizenry that our founders envisioned the electorate to be.

And speaking of selective recall, I didn't vote for McCain - something I very publicly stated right here on TnT. I cast a protest vote for Barr.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

184

^ 170

Re: selective recall

JimmyHavok.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:58:00 AM EST

none

the rational, informed citizenry that our founders envisioned the electorate to be

Property-owning adult white males.

I tend to go with Churchill: democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.  Over the past eight years, we've seen what kind of government we got when democracy was disrespected.

197

^ 153

Re: I hadn't even bothered...

Shy Elf.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:48:12 PM EST

5.00

You're leaving out the obvious comparison to JFK.

First of all, the majority of people acting as if the Berlin Wall had just fallen are blacks who had convinced themselves that they were living in a country in which they would never see racism decrease to an extent which would allow a black to be elected President.  Even if change has been gradual, the comparison to the situation for blacks in th 60s and prior would seem to me to justify the emotion.

Secondly,  we have a President who in private has been disrespectful of democracy and in private, and has said, "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," a President who openly advocates for the right of the government to disappear American citizens, a Justice Department which has been so highly politicized that it falsely convicted an Alabama Governor for political reasons alone, fired a large part of the US attorneys for failing to pursue bogus voter fraud claims, and initiated directed prosecutions looking for evidence that specific people committed crimes, like the one which snared Eliott Spitzer by scrutinizing his bank records without a reason to do so.  A lot of people are very happy just to see a peaceful transition of power this time.

The speech itself is certainly a good speech with a theme in tune with the feelings and concerns of the crowd.  Inspiring?  That's probably all that it took for it to be considered inspiring at that moment.  Like most of Obama's speeches, it rings a bit empty on the subject of policy, which is a point which is of very little concern the first time you hear his speeches, but a concern which grows with time and exposure to them.  On the other hand, it's worlds better than the usual, "And finally, thanks to my dog Miffy for helping me through those difficult times," type of speech.

The Republican meme that there is vast government waste in the form of earmarks of a size significant enough to sink economy has been adopted most of the electorate.  With congressional approval ratings hovering near 16 percent and also a uniquely divisive President, I think it's important not to underestimate the degree to which voters see our country's problems to be caused by partisanship itself.  Simply by being a black man running for president on a platform of nonpartisanship and an end to ad hominem attacks, Obama came to be seen by many as the Messiah of nonpartisanship, who will finally reform the system.

Clearly this kind of expectation us impossible to meet, and people will in the end be disappointed, but will they be disappointed enough to wish that they had voted for McCain?  The President does quite a lot to set the tone of debate in Washington, though perhaps not so much as the Speaker of the House and other House leadership, who have if anything made the situation worse under Pelosi.

If you've ever watched CSPAN, you know that very little gets done in front of TV cameras.  Politicians play to the audience at home, rather than trying to craft legislation which will resolve the concerns of both sides.  Congress suffers from a critical inability to delegate.  Congressional subcommittees, rather than being a half-time job as one might expect, meet highly infrequently, and when they do take an interest the administration currently refuses to cooperate with them.  All legislation must be passed by Congress, which doesn't have time to spend on any one thing, so legislation rushes through with little oversight.  Where there are major problems in the bureaucracy, there is no feedback channel into the legislative process to get them fixed.

Will Obama change any of that?  A little perhaps, but most of the "change" Obama seems to me to be advocating doesn't appear to be in the realm of what can easily be accomplished by a President.

169

^ 151

Re: Let's see what earned Ken my sneering rating.

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:19:22 AM EST

none

I thought I'd probably never live to see what I saw on Tuesday evening and, for me, it was an inspiring moment.  I realize you have your concerns over what an Obama administration will mean for you and that might drive you to step up to the plate to defend what Ken was saying here.  But for me what he posted was world-class, look down the nose, condescendingly sneering
Maybe you also misunderstood what I wrote, MAYOR. My comment was "condescendingly sneering," but that was directed at Obama's most enthusiastic supporters, not at the man himself.

178

^ 169

Re: Let's see what earned Ken my sneering rating.

MayorBob.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:36:01 AM EST

5.00 (pointed)

And I was responding to T Slothrop's wonderment as to how what you posted could have been characterized as sneering.  Now that you've come forward to openly admit it was, that closes the circle, I guess.

Tending to final details.

180

^ 178

I just told the truth and they thought it was hell

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:39:49 AM EST

4.00 (astute, delusional)

What you call "sneering" I call "a forthright appraisal of the facts."

185

^ 180

Re: I just told the truth and they thought it was

JimmyHavok.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:00:13 AM EST

none

Reminds me of Fun Facts about Dick Cheney: When Dick Cheney sneers, he thinks he's smiling.

181

^ 178

Re: Let's see...

T Slothrop.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:44:59 AM EST

none

I wasn't wondering why you chose the word "sneering" specifically, Bob. In fact I couldn't have cared less. I was wondering why you and whoever else tagged Zyx's post were describing the post negatively at all. I fully agree with zyx that the crying Obama supporters (and in my opinion the hissing, booing Palin supporters as well) deserve to be sneered at.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

182

^ 181

Wait, what?

Lou.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:55:33 AM EST

none

and in my opinion the hissing, booing Palin supporters as well

Wait a minute, didn't you say I don't recall seeing the kind of irrational reaction toward McCain at his campaign events?

Maybe I just don't understand the difference between a general irrational reaction and a targeted irrational reaction...other than it seems that  you're jumping on the "Palin's supporters were irrational too" bandwagon.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

191

^ 182

Re: Wait, what?

T Slothrop.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:11:16 AM EST

3.00 (discretionary, pointless, unproductive)

I see a real difference between the fuckwits and crazies at the Palin rallies booing and threatening the opposition and Obama's crazies crying at the feet of the chosen one. Both are irrational. Both are disturbing. But the crap that went on at Palin's appearances actually pales in comparison to the kind of hyperbole, dirt and outright threats that were part and parcel of the political landscape of this country in the 19th and very early 20th centuries. The worshipful Obama supporters - in my opinion - represent something we've not seen here before; something that I find disturbing

Nonetheless this is a waste of time. I'm not going to change your mind. I've got better (or at least more productive) things to do and I'll bet you do, too. Have a nice weekend.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

107

^ 106

Must be who you know

Lou.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:03:35 PM EST

4.50 (observant, disrespectful)

I know a lot of folks who supported Obama for president and they're completely cool with it.  Are they happy?  Of course...just like any other person who's favorite won an important election.  Interestingly enough, it's the McCain supporters I know who are  being irrational and bitter (and that's not including the crazy guy who walks around town reading the 2nd Amendment over and over to nothing but pigeons and air).  

Also, I don't know why the whole personality cult thing is a all of a sudden a cause of concern.  Maybe it's getting worse, but it's been around since at least FDR (Reagan, anyone?)  Hell, remember when Fox news kept referring to Bush as "Commander In Chief" rather than simply president.  Hell again, I'd like someone to say with a straight face that Palin wasn't a giant koolade drinking cult o' personality all by her lonesome.

And finally,

I always thought Americans were too sophisticated to ever fall into that trap

No disrespect intended...but we're talking about the USA, right?

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

109

^ 107

Re: Must be who you know

T Slothrop.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:24:32 PM EST

none

No disrespect intended...but we're talking about the USA, right?

Heh. Yeah.

But seriously, with the possible exception of FDR among rural folk in the 1930s, I don't think we've ever seen an Asian or Eastern European-style true Cult of Personality rise in this country.

I'd always thought that modern Americans, at least those under about 70, were too snarky, too much a bunch of wise-asses to ever really engage in blind or near-blind worship of "just some guy".

But maybe you are right: Maybe I am the naive one here.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

110

^ 109

Re: Must be who you know

Lou.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:30:52 PM EST

none

Heh. Yeah

No, really.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

111

^ 109

Re: Must be who you know

Lou.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:33:28 PM EST

none

I was going to come back with a snarky, wise-ass response, but Chronon says it best.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

116

^ 111

Re: Must be who you know

T Slothrop.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:01:33 PM EST

none

That's ok, really :)

But Chronon's post didn't really serve as a direct response to my last post. I still contend that there doesn't seem to be any real reason or explanation behind the emotional response that Obama seems to bring forth in a lot of people.

You see some of these folks zyx was describing in his original post, it's like they've been locked in a dungeon for the past eight years and Obama has come with the keys. Sure W. was a horrible president. He should never be allowed to wash the blood of the 4,000 or so American soldiers who have died in Iraq off his hands. But come on. I don't see bread lines (yet). Bush didn't cause the housing bubble to burst. But even with that I think that the vast majority of Americans are living more or less the same kind of lives they were living in 2001. So exactly what kind of horror is Obama delivering us from that would bring about people bursting into tears upon just shaking his hand? Some of the stuff I've seen looks like footage from Eastern Europe in 89-90 when the Warsaw Pact governments started to fall.

These questions are (more or less) rhetorical, but I admit I am truly baffled by all this.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

127

^ 106

Re: The Speeches

JimmyHavok.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:48:32 PM EST

none

I always thought Americans were too sophisticated to ever fall into that (cult of personality) trap

Have you been around for the past eight years?

130

^ 127

Re: The Speeches

T Slothrop.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:57:23 PM EST

none

Again, I'd hardly call the fundie right's adoration of Bush a true cult of personality - at least not in the way I mean the term, Jimmy.

I'm talking Stalin, the Kims, Suharto, Peron, Castro, Hoxa in Albania, etc.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

108

^ 103

Re: The Speeches

Chronon.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:24:15 PM EST

5.00 (astute, rhapsodic, astute)

No.  Christians who accept that God chose Bush to lead the country don't have any direct reason for thinking so.  They convinced themselves that some proxy (God) provides a reason for choosing Bush.  This removes their responsibility for making the choice.  They didn't choose Bush -- God chose him.  At least with Obama groupies, you can probably ask for reasons for their preference that involves the object of that preference rather than some metaphysical proxy.  

Personally, I find his composure impressive.  He displays a measured, careful demeanor that seems to bode well for someone who will take the reins of this country.  I don't care for brash leaders.  He also doesn't invoke God as a basis for his decisions, unlike Bush.  An appeal to divine authority leaves no room for a rational basis for policy.  Bush's administration, indeed, abstained from giving logical reasons for their actions -- opting instead for divine-right or duplicitous double-speak when explaining many of his actions.  

You are, of course, free to find nothing inspiring in Obama.  I still have some expectation that Obama will use logic and reason to explain his decisions.  And I maintain some smaller hope that he will work to undo some of the flagrant advances of executive power brought by Bush and company during the last 8 years.  That will provide a strong litmus test for me.

All in all, he seems to have a strong work ethic and to respect the public's ability to digest logical explanations of things rather than spoon-feeding us "mandate from God" bullshit.  I can see how some people could find that inspiring.  

112

^ 108

Re: The Speeches

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:49:56 PM EST

none

At least with Obama groupies, you can probably ask for reasons for their preference that involves the object of that preference rather than some metaphysical proxy
I wasn't talking about people with a mere "preference." Sorry if my comment was not clear.

He displays a measured, careful demeanor...
You're saying that's why some people weep in his presence? Come on.

I still have some expectation that Obama will use logic and reason to explain his decisions.  And I maintain some smaller hope that he will work to undo some of the flagrant advances of executive power brought by Bush and company during the last 8 years
Me, too, and that's why I voted for him. But the hero worship is disturbing.

124

^ 112

Re: The Speeches

Chronon.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:35:06 PM EST

none

Well, if you're asking for the reasons why particular individuals exhibit extreme reactions to Obama, then I think you're sending people on a snipe hunt.  How should I (or anyone, for that matter) know why a given individual does that?  

I think that Obama and his camp find the public's response a bit perplexing as well.  It appears that Obama and his camp are trying to defuse inflated expectations, so it seems they are keen to some irrationality amongst his supporters.  Hero worship generally leads to disappointment and they seem to want to prevent that.

Hero worship will surely annoy those on the other side and widen the rift.  I think it's not really a productive thing at all for the country.  But I'm willing to let people emote for a second if they need to.

125

^ 124

Re: The Speeches

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:42:59 PM EST

none

If someone says that Obama's speeches are "awe inspiring," then I think it's reasonable to ask why, becaue I don't see it.

132

^ 125

Re: The Speeches

Chronon.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 07:27:17 PM EST

none

Okay, so this is none of my business then.  You want someone else to translate their subjective experience of listening to his speech into language that you can understand.  That has nothing to do with me.

Do you find anything awe inspiring?  I could also ask for a similar translation from you as to why you find that thing awe inspiring.

138

^ 132

Re: The Speeches

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:39:40 PM EST

4.00 (jaded)

...so this is none of my business then.  You want someone else to translate their subjective experience...
You're welcome to chime in if you would like. I'd like anyone to try to explain to me how they could be so free of skepticism as to find a politician's speech awe inspiring.

Do you find anything awe inspiring?
Sure, but not politicians.

147

^ 138

Re: The Speeches

JimmyHavok.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:36:12 AM EST

4.33 (awesome, long)

In other words, there is nothing Obama could say, nor any way he could say it, that you would admit was awe-inspiring, and your own ego is so awe-inspring that you think this is some sort of objective position.

All I can say is if you didn't find this speech stirring, your head is so far up your ass you can't read.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

156

^ 147

That speech, in a hellhole known as Philadelphia,

permazorch.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:42:05 PM EST

4.66 (interesting, brilliant, astute)

was what locked me into having a bit of hope.

You know I have zero expectations for Obama. He broke my heart (and I'll never stop saying it, and he wasn't alone) with FISA, but this is the first president since John F. Kennedy, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to inspire regular, burnt to a crispy critter by radioactive cynicism, workaday humans such as myself to actively participate in how and where we go from what and who we are today.

Cult of Personality? That's a mediocre song by a mediocre band.

You know what Obama's strength is, don't you? His motherfucking cult of personality is about as juicy as whole wheat toast without butter. He's no Churchill, or Castro, and he's no lame-ass bullshit artist like Bill Clinton. His strength is in his minimalism. He's no hero, but he helped make this country more heroic at 10:15 PM, CST, last Tuesday night. We truly are a better country than we thought we were.

So, yeah, let us be happy zombies until he's slept in the White House for a week, okay? D'ya mind?!

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

172

^ 147

Re: The pooches

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:25:33 AM EST

none

I read the whole thing before, James, and it's no better* than any of Obama's other speeches.



* It's no worse either. He's an excellent political speaker, i.e., says a lot of words and inspires with his style, but with almost no substance at all.

186

^ 172

Substance is where you find it

JimmyHavok.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:09:04 AM EST

none

You find no substance there because you refuse to.

Substance:

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.
Substance:
...race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.
Pretty obvious why you didn't want to notice that bit of substance.

Substance:

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

The whole speech is filled with substantive points that I, for one, have been waiting for some politician to say.  Perhaps I find it so moving because it matches much of what I have been saying myself, and no doubt you find it unmoving for similar reasons.

189

^ 186

Re: it's...

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:16:17 AM EST

none

...Dr. Martin Luther Havoc, Jr.

192

^ 189

I really feel sorry for you

JimmyHavok.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:26:47 AM EST

none

We need people to perform the work of government, and because we live in a democracy, they have to be politicians.  As politicians, they have certain tools at their disposal, generally falling into the category of inspiring people to work for them.  That means that, among other things, they have to give speeches to large numbers of people, that are calculated to inspire those people to action.

You've decided that politicians are categorically despicable, and therefore will despise them in the face of whatever they might say, since it is said only to induce people to work for that politician.  But there are a variety of different strategies that a politician can use to induce support, and not all of them are despicable.

I find Obama's strategy of calling on the best of people, calling on their hope for the future and their fellow feeling for others, no matter how different they may be, to a an admirable strategy, and I am glad that it worked, especially since the counter strategy employed by McCain, calling on hate and fear, failed in this time of crisis.

You choose not to be awed.  You choose to be contemptuous of those who make a different choice.  That's your choice, but you are the less for making it.

193

^ 192

Re: I really feel sorry for you

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM EST

3.00 (realistic, discretionary, pitiable)

You've decided that politicians are categorically despicable, and therefore will despise them...
Not at all, and I wonder where you got the idea that my thoughts were so extreme.

You choose to be contemptuous of those who make a different choice
Contemptuous? No, it's nothing like that. It's more the feeling  get when I see some really, really devoted sports fans ecstatic when their team wins a championship. I understand liking sports, rooting for a particular team, and even experiencing happiness when they win. But when I see a fan rejoicing such a win I cannot help but feel pity for them because of their base behavior.

196

^ 193

Re: I really feel sorry for you

JimmyHavok.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 05:26:34 PM EST

none

Well, zyx, not everyone has the lack of affect that plagues you.

I find rejoicing at the election of a politician to be much more rational than caring about a sports team, since:

  1. your efforts were part of getting him elected
  2. if you supported him, it's because you think he can do some good.

Your answer here, about pitying people for their emotions, demonstrates exactly what I claimed about you: you have contempt for those who make choices different from yours, a contempt rooted in your inability to recognize your own choices as both subjective and limiting.

164

^ 138

crossover

thefadd.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:45:50 PM EST

none

Here's one person who found at least a portion of the words written on the page from Obama's speech at least "great."

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

166

^ 164

Re: pfft.

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:09:30 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

Impressive.

122

^ 108

Religion and Obama

profwhat.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:24:37 PM EST

none

[Obama] doesn't invoke God as a basis for his decisions, unlike Bush.  An appeal to divine authority leaves no room for a rational basis for policy.

With at least one very notable exception:  "I'm a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman," Obama said.  And that was his most complete explanation of why he opposes gay marriage.

128

^ 122

Re: Religion and Obama

Chronon.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:49:56 PM EST

none

That's a good counterexample.  And I think it comes down to some unfortunate tightrope walking necessitated by the extremely religious nature of this country.  We have elected someone with a significant fraction of non-European ancestry to the highest office, but I have no illusions that we will elect an atheist (or someone with an other than Judeo-Christian religion) any time soon.

Yes, in this case, his appeal to tradition and religious belief (though at least he takes the responsibility by chalking it up to his belief rather than to God's wishes) does place this issue out of reach of rationality and logic.  I find this stance unfortunate.  

Why does everyone conflate religious marriage with civil marriage anyway?  It seems like incredibly sloppy thinking.  Why should a religion care if any couple gets a civil marriage and obtains civil rights?  They don't have to recognize such a marriage.  Similarly, a religious marriage, in and of itself, confers no civil benefits.

123

^ 108

Re: The Speeches

Jackkeefe.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:25:24 PM EST

none

He also doesn't invoke God as a basis for his decisions, unlike Bush

Are you aware of any specific examples of Bush evoking scripture as the basis of a course of action?  Obama made some pretty explicit references to following scripture during the Saddleback debate, more explicit than any reference by Bush that I can think of offhand.

129

^ 123

Re: The Speeches

JimmyHavok.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:56:58 PM EST

3.00 (dreamy)

Are you aware of any specific examples of Bush evoking scripture as the basis of a course of action?  

Of course Bush doesn't invoke scripture, that would involve being familiar with scripture.   But the statement was "invoke God," not "invoke scripture," and Bush has indeed claimed that God has told him what to do...oddly enough, it was usually contrary to what scripture would have told him to do.

134

^ 129

Re: Very very dubious hearsay

Jackkeefe.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 07:36:29 PM EST

4.00 (common)

Common dreams quoting a Palestinian minister?  You don't think Nabil Shaath
might have an agenda to advance here?  I really can't think of a combination of sources that is less credible.

148

^ 134

Re: Very very dubious hearsay

JimmyHavok.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:38:36 AM EST

3.00 (avoiding)

You couldn't read more than a few paragraphs?

155

^ 148

Re: Very very dubious hearsay

Jackkeefe.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:51:38 PM EST

none

The part where Bush says "I'm surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that."?

161

^ 155

Re: Very very dubious hearsay

JimmyHavok.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:44:08 PM EST

none

I'm curious.  Is your position that Bush lied when he talked to Shaath and Abbas, or that they lied about what he said to them?  If they lied, what was his reaction to that?  If they lied, what was their purpose?

162

^ 161

Re: Very very dubious hearsay

Jackkeefe.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 08:25:45 PM EST

none

Given the totality of the circumstances, I find it almost impossible to believe that Bush chose Shaath and Abbas, and only Shaath and Abbas, to reveal the divine inspiration of the Iraq war. Am I really supposed to believe that Bush decided that the only two people worthy of hearing this were two hostile palestinian governmental officals?

Whe  you consider that every other sentence out of Bush's mouth during that long drawn out  "rush to war" was an assurance that the war was directed only against the government of Iraq and not Islam as a whole while Saddam and every hostile middle eastern government attempted to portray the war as  another crusade, it makes the story even more implausible.  What greater p.r. coup could there be for an government that relies on millitant islam for its very survival than an admission by the Great Satan that his christian god told him to destroy Iraq?

If Karl Rove had  declared two weeks before the election that Obama had privately told him that he was a millitant islamist, would you accept Rove's  statement  as a fact?    

188

^ 162

Re: Very very dubious hearsay

JimmyHavok.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:13:40 AM EST

none

What greater p.r. coup could there be for an government that relies on millitant islam for its very survival than an admission by the Great Satan that his christian god told him to destroy Iraq?

You don't know much about Palestinian politics, do you?  You seem to be confusing Hamas (the Islamic party) with Fatah (the secular party).

And you haven't explained why Bush let the claim stand, if it was a lie.

139

^ 103

Re: The Speeches

thefadd.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:58:49 PM EST

5.00 (succinct)

If meaning were only derived from a plain reading of the words on the page, people wouldn't bother to teach oratory.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

141

^ 139

Re: The Speeches

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:30:33 PM EST

2.00 (reaching, grasping, straw)

So you're awed by Obama's ability to make nothing sound like something? Too bad he can't fix the economy that way.

142

^ 141

shrugs

thefadd.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:41:48 PM EST

5.00 (invigorating)

I'm not looking for Obama (or the government) to "fix" the economy. I'm quite impressed with the opportunities presented by the current landscape and feel sorry for anyone looking to the government for hand outs in this day and age.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

143

^ 142

Re: shrugs

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 10:59:35 PM EST

4.00 (alert)

You must hope, then, that his passive promise to, "conduct an exhaustive line-by-line review of the federal budget and seek to eliminate government programs that are not performing," means he will cut the hell out of welfare.

144

^ 143

Re: shrugs

thefadd.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:08:38 PM EST

4.00 (contemplative)

What's welfare?

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

145

^ 144

Re: shrugs

zyxwvutsr.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:00:02 AM EST

3.50 (jealous, precise)

Welfare is when the government gives someone money for doing nothing.

149

^ 145

money for nothing

JimmyHavok.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:41:01 AM EST

5.00 (righteous, funny)

Oh, you mean like Halliburton.

Wait, Halliburton did worse than nothing.  What is that?

167

^ 149

Re: havok for nothing

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:13:48 AM EST

none

I don't know, James. What did Halliburton do?

190

^ 167

Re: havok for nothing

JimmyHavok.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:17:39 AM EST

none

194

^ 190

Re: havok for nothing

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 10:28:57 AM EST

none

You think contract fraud is welfare? That's an odd definition, but whatever.

195

^ 194

Re: havok for nothing

JimmyHavok.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 04:51:32 PM EST

none

Hey, I'm basing it on your definition:

Welfare is when the government gives someone money for doing nothing.
However, I did point out that Halliburton did less than nothing, so it might not fit.

150

^ 145

Re: shrugs

thefadd.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:56:39 AM EST

none

Am I to assume that you believe the American government engages in this activity? And if so, can you name specific programs/laws/rules pertaining to such which you believe should be "cut the hell out of?"

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

165

^ 150

Re: drugs

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:08:23 AM EST

none

...can you name specific programs/laws/rules pertaining to such which you believe should be "cut the hell out of?"
There are probably many, but the one that immediately comes to mind is the wasteful, damaging farm bill that Obama seemed to think was so groovy.

168

^ 165

Re: drugs

Lou.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:14:58 AM EST

none

Dude...if you are so critical of the man, why did you vote for him...unless of course, you're lying.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

171

^ 168

Re: hugs

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:21:41 AM EST

none

...if you are so critical of the man, why did you vote for him...[?]
Lou, the alternatives were Barr, McCain, and McKinney.

174

^ 171

Re: hugs

Lou.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:30:37 AM EST

none

or leave it blank...surely there must have been local issues that would have made your trip to the polling place worthwhile?

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

175

^ 174

Re: bugs

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:32:52 AM EST

none

I voted for mayor and city council. And president. And congressman.

176

^ 175

Re:not drugs

Lou.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:34:16 AM EST

none

We'll there ya go, my little patriot!  :-)

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

179

^ 176

Re:not drugs

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:36:50 AM EST

none

Remember, Lou, I have proof that I voted for him in the primary.

183

^ 179

Re:maybe drugs

Lou.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 01:57:45 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

Well, after reading Gordon's stunning expose on the Serbian concentration camps, I no longer trust "proof".

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

187

^ 183

Re:maybe wacom

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 02:11:32 AM EST

none

It's true: I have mad photoshop skilz.

177

^ 174

Re: hugs

port1080.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:34:42 AM EST

none

or leave it blank...surely there must have been local issues that would have made your trip to the polling place worthwhile?

I did want to cast a vote in the national election, but sadly there were no local races worth voting for here...all the incumbents either won by 20 points or more (not joking) or simply ran unopposed.  The presidential race was the most competitive race on the ballot, even considering that Obama & Biden won our state 68/32.  Nothing like a little one-party government in Delaware....

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

198

^ 177

Re: hugs

pO157.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 06:59:25 PM EST

none

 Nothing like a little one-party government in Delaware....

Welcome to my hell.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

200

^ 165

Re: drugs

thefadd.

Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:39:08 PM EST

none

While you're right in a broad sense to call that welfare, I don't think it's the first or even third thing that would come to mind for most people when invoking the word. That said, I'd also agree to cutting what you linked to.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

201

^ 200

Re: quit while you're ahead.

zyxwvutsr.

Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 09:54:57 PM EST

3.00 (behind)

While you're right...
Um. Yeah.

154

^ 103

Re: The Speeches

keta.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:46:27 PM EST

4.83 (astute, boggy, pointed)

Bog forbid American people embrace "hope" after having the shit kicked out of their world standing, economy, and constitution.  

Bog forbid that two different speeches spotlighting the opportunity to turn around all the fetid shit that's been passed off as leadership for the past eight years be embraced by many who desperately believe their country is better than what its shown itself to be under Bush.

Bog forbid a country elects a non-white for the first time in its history and maybe sheds some of its more odious history in the process.

And finally, z, Bog fucking forbid that you don't take each and every opportunity to throw cold water on any warm enthusiasm.  You're a very bright guy, but your contrarianism is off the fucking charts.  

173

^ 154

Re: The Sponges

zyxwvutsr.

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 12:30:07 AM EST

5.00 (contrary)

And finally, z, Bog fucking forbid that you don't take each and every opportunity to throw cold water on any warm enthusiasm
I don't know who Bog is, but I'll try to live up to his expectations.

You're a very bright guy...
And you're an astute observer.

...but your contrarianism is off the fucking charts
No it's not.

119

^ 103

Re: The Speeches

ms sue.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:19:44 PM EST

none

I have seen photos of people who cried - actually burst into tears of joy - when they met Obama.

Regardless of the pictures you've seen, this subthread began with a mere statement that Obama's speech was awe-inspiring. You're the one who's gone off about people weeping when they meet him, which you've mentioned twice so far, and about worshipping him.

I disagree with your bleak, utilitarian view of the purpose of most political speeches. Surely there are some occasions when a detailed outline of policy is called for. I don't think a winner's election night speech is one of them. Instead, I think inspiration is exactly what's called for. And I applaud the man for his ability to deliver it.

120

^ 119

Re: The Speeches

zyxwvutsr.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:54:35 PM EST

1.00 (obtuse)

...this subthread began with a mere statement that Obama's speech was awe-inspiring. You're the one who's gone off about people weeping when they meet him, which you've mentioned twice so far, and about worshipping him
And you're the one who mentioned being "swept away." What causes one to be swept away by a politician?

Surely there are some occasions when a detailed outline of policy is called for. I don't think a winner's election night speech is one of them
Has Obama ever given a detailed outline of policy?

121

^ 120

Re: The Speeches

thefadd.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:10:25 PM EST

none

Yes. It's called Blueprint for Change: Obama and Biden's Plan for America and at 83 pages, it's the most detailed outline of policy I've personally seen from a candidate.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

136

^ 121

Re: The Speeches

Steve Urkel.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:29:23 PM EST

4.00 (realistic)

You think he's accountable for what's outlined in that document? How would that attack ad go? On page 53 of the PDF on Obama's website from before he was elected he proposed x and didn't deliver.

 

137

^ 136

Re: The Speeches

thefadd.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 09:32:31 PM EST

none

No, I doubt there'd be that much attention to policy in a television ad.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

118

^ 102

First Puppy

profwhat.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 05:07:33 PM EST

none

I was inspired by Obama's keeping his promise to get a presidential pooch.

That was cute, but it was also kind of depressing.  "Bear through this and I'll buy you a puppy" is something that too many children have heard from recently divorced or overworking parents.  "That refrain may sound familiar to many working parents, who may make promises or give rewards to their children in part to assuage their guilt that they are working too hard or traveling too much for their jobs."

For most families, this is a horrible reason to bring a dog into the family; if mom and dad are too busy to spend much time with their kids, they definitely don't have time to spend with a dog, too.  Dogs are social animals and need lots of attention, especially when they are puppies.  The Obamas, however, are a special case, and I don't doubt that the Obama Puppy will be well-cared for; in fact, if I recall correctly, Socks the Cat had his own Secret Service protection.  However, there is the dark tale of Buddy, the chocolate lab Clinton acquired.  Thanks to his poor training, Buddy ran out of the Chappaqua house and into traffic.

131

^ 118

Re: First Puppy

JimmyHavok.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:59:14 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

Labradors seem to be genetically inclined to run out into traffic, from what I have observed.

6

Whatever Happens Tomorrow

thefadd.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 04:21:47 AM EST

4.80 (funny, riotous, expiatory)

No cop car in Montreal will be safe!

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

1

Re: Election 2008: The Home Stretch

DEMachina.

Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 09:58:26 PM EST

4.66 (scholarly, chatty, mauve)

I hope to be in chat most of the day (definitely will be while I'm in class...later on depends on some plans with people working out).

I'm glad the turnout is high; it's nice to see people getting involved for a change.  According to CNN, here in Virginia they're expecting to have more than 500,000 absentee ballots, compared with half that number in 2004.  I just hope we don't end up with a complete breakdown logistically, but I'm cautiously optimistic.

See everyone in chat tomorrow!

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

2

^ 1

Re: Election 2008: The Home Stretch

thefadd.

Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 10:11:57 PM EST

5.00 (mundane)

Save a massive landslide for Obama, I'd anticipate a logistical nightmare that holds up results for at least days, obviously longer if legal battles ensue.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

4

Re: Election 2008: The Home Stretch

Lou.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 12:47:44 AM EST

4.60 (unlikely, orange, wrong)

McCain is going to win.

Why does reduced fat Swiss cheese have twice as many holes are regular Swiss cheese?

5

^ 4

Re: Election 2008: The Home Stretch

pO157.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 01:12:38 AM EST

5.00 (polymorphic, poised, poignant)

Really? Cool. I want to get in on this:

Bob Barr is going to win.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

42

^ 4

Re: Election 2008: The Home Stretch

logan.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:55:02 PM EST

5.00 (prescient)

Thanks, Lou. I needed a good laugh.

The winner will be Obama by 6% of the popular vote and 350 electoral votes.

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.

66

Hopes, Dreams, Change.

pO157.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:32:29 AM EST

4.33 (pessimistic, astute, intriguing)

I wish President-elect Obama all the best with the challenges he is to face during the next four years. It is going to be a tough task, but I hope he is successful. I believe he is an honorable man, and will try to do what he sees as the right thing. Unfortunately, I think he'll be a one termer. I believe there will be serious buyers remorse within the next two years. Why? I'll explain in poorly written bullet point format before I turn in for the night.

-Given the current economic crisis, his spending programs are impractical at best. He may get Universal Healthcare through, but this will damage the country in the long term --- social security is untenable as is, this spending will be even worse.

-I doubt his tax cuts can be implemented as advertised. With an increase in spending he needs to come up with extra cash (raise taxes) or more deficit spending to balance things out.

-As the debt balloons, more notice will be paid to the mounting burden. Eventually, the national debt in and of itself will cause deleterious effects to the economy and nation. Obama will be blamed, rightly or wrongly, as he will be at the helm when things go bad, especially if he has not been running surpluses.

-I doubt his plan to make a clean break from Iraq will be as easy as advertised. The left will be angry without a relatively fast end to the war.

-Unfortunately for him, his mandate (McCain + 3% of the popular vote) is not that wide of a mandate at all. A significant portion of the centrists voted for him because he is not McCain/Bush. These normally would not go for his slightly liberal policies. As many of his programs get implemented, the center and right/center will be disenchanted.

-Expansion of Government, erosion of civil liberties. I keep hearing from Obama apologists that his vote for FISA, et al was just to appeal to centrists and security minded folk. They argued that once he is elected he would cut down on government power. Given the rest of his platform, I doubt this very much. This will bother the folks who voted for him because of government intrusion and out of civil liberties concerns. It will also mobilize the right wing, should the GOP get it together and stop serving as a quasi-religious organization.

My predictions? Increasing disenchantment against Obama. Since the GOP has shown it is able to effectively function as a minority party in Congress and the Dems can't play hardball expect many of his policies to fail or come under resistance. By the halfway point his approval ratings are 40-50%. GOP makes some gains in '10 in both houses but they are tempered by their lack of a coherent strategy or message. The GOP ties Obama, Pelosi and Reid together in one giant package and the electorate blames them for their woes. Obama loses re-election bid in '12.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

86

^ 66

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

skeptic.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:45:35 PM EST

4.00 (pessimistic, realistic)

I agree, it seem virtually inevitable that there is going to be tremendous disappointment with Obama.  America faces ridiculously difficult problems which will be almost impossible to solve, and while Obama is good, he isn't that good.  Nonetheless, I personally am happy with the election result.  Obama is far from being able to fix all that is wrong with America or with the world, yet, he is clearly the better choice, and he is a genuinely inspiring figure.  And even the fact that the US has been able to elect an African-American is a sign of progress in itself, almost regardless of what Obama actually does as President.  If he does nothing else, he has at least proved that racism can be overcome.  

I mentioned to a friend of mine, some time ago, that Obama was going to disappoint him as President, and he replied that he was looking forward to being disappointed by Obama.  Even as a disappointment, Obama will still be good for America, and we will still love him.  So I predict.

90

^ 66

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

skeptic.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:01:03 PM EST

4.00 (pessimistic, hydrophobic, familiar)

I agree with you; it seems inevitable that we are going to be disappointed by Obama.  He is facing problems of such difficulty as to be practically insoluble.  Nonetheless, he will do better than McCain would have done, so however disappointed I may eventually come to feel, I will never actually regret that he was elected.  And just by winning the election he has already accomplished something very important, by demonstrating that racism can be overcome.  He already has accomplished more, before even being sworn in, than George W. Bush has accomplished in eight years in office.

93

^ 90

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

JimmyHavok.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:05:25 PM EST

none

practically insoluble.

Hyperbolize much?

I agree that some people will be disappointed by Obama, since reality rarely matches the ideal.  The people who are most likely to be disappointed are the ones who took the Republican attacks against Obama as truth, whether they are on the left or the right.

Those with some historical perspective will remember that Clinton came into office with a recession and a huge deficit.  He turned them both around with savvy economic policies.  I suspect Obama will be able to put together just as effective a set of policies.

104

^ 93

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

skeptic.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 02:56:43 PM EST

none

Of course, we all wish Obama success, and it may be that the problems of America are not as insoluble as I fear.

91

^ 66

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

skeptic.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:06:31 PM EST

4.00 (pessimistic, polymorphic, duplicative)

I agree, Obama will in the end disappoint a lot of people, who will expect him to work miracles when the country is facing virtually insoluble problems.  Even so, merely by getting elected, and proving thereby that racism can be defeated, Obama has already accomplished more than George W. Bush has in his entire 8 years in office.

100

^ 91

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

laputanmachine.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 01:56:50 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

The BBC's Justin Webb says that Obama's election is America's way of "slamming the door on its racial past." This strikes me as odd since Obama's election did not magically erase the 33% of black American males who have been in, are in, or will be in prison. In Washington DC itself, Obama's new home, that statistic goes up to 50%. Nor did it magically increase the educational, scientific, or financial achievements of most black Americans. Heck, even in Obama's primetime TV special, he distanced himself from his black father by basically saying "I barely knew the guy", and instead informed the viewer that he was raised by whites. Point being, most Americans probably still have relatively low opinions of black Americans as a whole, when compared to other racial groups.

So I don't see Obama's win as a huge step forward here. Certainly not a big enough step for all the strange drama the news is making about it. I feel like the news is just trying to sizzle things up for the sake of ratings.

101

^ 100

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

pO157.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:46:22 AM EST

none

The whole thing is kind of shallow. For example, my parents sent me an e-mail forward from some Left wing activist who was going on about how great it was that a black guy got elected.

That's great, but I didn't think the purpose of the presidency was to make various groups feel more included. I thought it was to run the country. Furthermore, how is voting for Senator Obama because of his color any better than voting against him specifically because of the same? I'll never get that.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

113

^ 101

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

Chronon.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:49:56 PM EST

5.00 (interesting)

I agree to an extent.  I think that the authentic sign of a new egalitarianism would not include voting for someone based on their ethnic heritage.  The most positive thing for this country would be electing the best candidate, regardless of their ethnic heritage.  Choosing someone because of their race undermines the message that the elected person was really the best choice for the job.  However, I wonder just how prevalent this was throughout the electorate.  

I certainly agree that past history of a race should not really factor into which individual we should elect to the presidency.  I believe that individual traits should be the determining factor -- not the properties or history of a population.  

I decline to split hairs over whether positive or negative racism is morally better.  I voted for Obama because I felt he was the better choice and I think that most people probably did the same.  The strongest positive statement for this country comes if we honestly elected the person whom we thought best to the presidency and it happened to be someone with mixed ethnic heritage.  This affirms egalitarian ideals that most Americans claim to uphold.  It means that anyone can succeed, regardless of the details of their heritage.  Obviously, if the outcome was decided by considerations that depend on the details of African-American History, then it reduces the scope of the significance of this election.  It means that other minorities should not take this as an encouraging sign that America is willing to accept any person based upon their merits.  

I would like to think that this election signals that America is really embracing its egalitarian rhetoric (i.e. that Obama was elected based on his merits, not his race).  

126

^ 101

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

JimmyHavok.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 06:44:47 PM EST

none

If we'd elected Jesse Jackson, I think your point would be valid.  But we elected a black guy, not because he is black, but because he was the best candidate in this election.  There was a time when he would have lost because of his race, and the fact that he didn't is a heartening sign of the generational changes that are taking place in America.

Even the close win of Proposition 8 in California, 52-48, is a sign of those changes.  Eight years ago in Hawaii, a similar initiative passed with 70% of the vote, and Hawaii is generally considered very open and tolerant, a national leader in progressive causes.  I suspect that while the same initiative would win again today, the margin would be much slimmer this time, and in 10 years, the ban on same-sex marriage will be out of our (and California's) constitution for good.

133

^ 126

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

gerrymander.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 07:36:20 PM EST

3.33 (perceptive, comatose, astute)

I suspect that while the same initiative would win again today, the margin would be much slimmer this time, and in 10 years, the ban on same-sex marriage will be out of our (and California's) constitution for good.

Two years ago, Arizona defeated an anti-same sex marriage amendment 51.5% "no" to 48.5% "yes". This year, a virtually identical amendment passed 56.5% "yes" to 43.5% "no" -- a 16-point swing. A lock-step march to progressivism is hardly guaranteed.

146

^ 133

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

JimmyHavok.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:24:25 AM EST

none

I'm talking about a generational change here, not one that will show in two years in one location.

Polls show that homophobia is inversely correlated with age.  As those young non-homophobes begin voting more and more as they get older, we'll see fewer and fewer of these fear- and hatred-inspired laws, and the ones that have been forced through now (motivated by a fear of that same generational change) will be repealed.

152

^ 146

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

profwhat.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:47:37 AM EST

none

Polls show that homophobia is inversely correlated with age

More accurately, polls show that younger people are more likely to support gay rights.  (Not everyone who votes against gay marriage is "homophobic.")  But it is not clear that those young people will retain those views as they get older.  Look at party identification: for decades younger people have skewed Democratic, but once they get married or have kids they go Republican.

Race and class play big roles here.  College graduates (who tend to be upper- and middle-class) strongly support gay rights.  African-Americans don't.  What killed Prop 8 was that lots of blacks showed up to the polls in California.

159

^ 152

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

JimmyHavok.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 06:26:35 PM EST

none

(Not everyone who votes against gay marriage is "homophobic.")

Some of them are in denial.

it is not clear that those young people will retain those views as they get older

I don't doubt that some will begin to skew reactionary as they age, but I would argue that the numbers at all ages have been moving away from homophobia as the years pass.

163

^ 152

Re: Hopes, Dreams, Change.

thefadd.

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 08:39:53 PM EST

none

But it is not clear that those young people will retain those views as they get older.

It certainly isn't--it would be unfair of us to expect you to read the future with your tea leaves. However, the inverse is true--it is not clear that those young people will change those views as they get older. Your point, then is a tautology and expresses no support for your conclusion.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

105

^ 100

racism in America

skeptic.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 03:03:07 PM EST

none

Obviously there are still huge race-related problems in America, which are not all going to magically disappear with the election of Obama.  However, his election is nonetheless a powerful demonstration that people of African descent (or in his case, mixed African-European descent) have no limit on what they can potentially accomplish.  I can remember when it was common in the south that African-Americans (or Negroes as they were then known) were excluded from restaurants used by European-American ("white") people.  The idea of an African-American becoming President would have been inconceivable even a few decades ago.  The whole concept that some races are inherently inferior to other races is profoundly undermined by Obama's accomplishment.  So yes, it is a big step forward.

7

Beginning the baseless speculation!

port1080.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:42:07 AM EST

4.00 (baseless, intriguing)

Early indications are that turnout is really high in the swing states...conventional wisdom would suggest that this will be a big boost for Obama, since it probably means that all those newly registered and young voters are actually voting.  Most polls discount newly registered voters to at least some degree, so if this is true Obama might actually overperform his poll numbers instead of underperform them.  Or not.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

10

Ahhhhh memories.

pO157.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:16:04 AM EST

4.00 (interesting)

In 2004, I voted in the depot garage attached to a disused highway salt silo. There were oil slick stains on the floor. Everybody was happy to be there, and the balloting was done old school style --- marking off boxes on a paper ballot, then putting it in the box.

This year, it was done at the salvation army around the corner, on one of those old clickety clack election machines. I was voter #10 at 6:45am. I waltzed in, waited a few minutes, cast my vote, and was out. No problems this time, although the precinct next to me was backed up because the guy in the booth apparently was stuck or confused by the process to the point where the election official was yelling at him through the curtain "JUST PULL THE TAB ON THE NAMES YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR, THEN PUSH THE RED HANDLE!" Repeatedly. For like 10 minutes.

Next year they are apparently going to all computerized voting. How sad. Ain't no school like the old school.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

18

record turnout

1fastdog.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:30:17 PM EST

4.00 (fascinating)

I voted at 10:30 this morning and at my polling place in the small, conservative PA town I live in, they'd already surpassed the previous record for number of voters.
My area runs about 75% republican, 25% democrat, but based on what I've heard and seen, I'm guessing that for the presidential vote, the numbers are probably going down for the repubs and up for the dems. Probably in the 65% McCain -vs- 35% Obama - those are huge numbers for a democrat in these parts. I believe that I mentioned a few months back about all the Obama yard signs popping up in what was previously GOP territory, and that has continued right up to the end. I've never seen so many democratic yard signs before. McCain signs? Bazillions of 'em. This is GOP country, after all. But the dems made a considerable dent in the make-up of the political signscape, so much so that folks were yanking out Obama signs from their neighbor's yards in irritation. Last week a 67 year-old woman was charged with destruction of property for tearing up several Obama signs in the yard next to hers at 11:30 at night - seriously, a 67 year-old woman out rampaging in her neighbors yard and destroying her signs at that time of the night.... that just doesn't happen around here. Seems to be part of the overall vibe of frustration that GOP backers have been giving off lately. There's this almost palpable sense of impending doom and gloom, much of it stemming from McCain's poor campaigning and utter lack of a coherent message. We'll see how it all turns out, but I get the sense Obama's closing this one out.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

61

Just got home from working at the polls....

JimmyHavok.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:52:01 AM EST

4.00 (funny)

....and Fox News looks sooooooo saaaaaad.....waaaaahhhhh......

65

^ 61

Ahahahahahahahahaha!

JimmyHavok.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:27:55 AM EST

none

Charles Krauthammer with tears in his eyes, sobbing that Obama is already planning to run for re-election.

72

Also

pO157.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM EST

4.00 (informative)

Pelosi defeats Cindy Sheehan.

Stevens still too close to call. We might not know for a few days, as he is supposedly up by 10k votes with 4x that in absentee ballots to go.

In other news, Bob Barr breaks LP vote record and may hit 500,000 when all stations report. Unfortunately, does not appear to be above 1% in any state except Indiana where his vote total is greater than the margin between Obama and McCain.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

75

^ 72

Re: Sheehan

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:48:38 AM EST

5.00 (succinct, astute)

"Just avoiding a debate shows a lot of disrespect for my campaign."
Heh. Ya think?

82

^ 75

Re: Sheehan

pO157.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM EST

none

Pelosi refusing to debate shows more than disrespect for Sheehan, it shows disrespect for the people who put Pelosi in power by giving the Dems the majority. I made the mistake of voting for them in '06 thinking that change was coming. I won't be fooled again.

On that note, I find it odd that a President with such high positive ratings is going into the White House allied with two of the most polarizing figures in the American legislature. How long until it rubs off on him? Mark my words, unfortunately there will be a lot of buyer's remorse in two (2) years. I have the best wishes and hopes for Obama, I just don't think he will be able to deliver everything he promised.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

92

^ 82

Re: Sheehan

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:25:21 PM EST

5.00 (soporific, sententious, sonorous)

Pelosi refusing to debate shows more than disrespect for Sheehan, it shows disrespect for the people who put Pelosi in power by giving the Dems the majority
Both deserve that disrespect, though to varying degrees to be sure.

73

^ 72

Re: Also

pO157.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:14:51 AM EST

4.00 (helpful)

Sorry. Should be Bob Barr broke record set by previous candidate, Badnarik. Clark in the 80s netted over a million.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

9

As packed as I've ever seen it.

MayorBob.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 11:05:17 AM EST

none

It took me about 45 minutes from when I got on line to when I registered my vote this morning.  And this was at the same polling place I had voted at for the past two presidential elections.  Neither of those two elections cost me more than 10 minutes of my life.

Tending to final details.

39

^ 9

Re: As packed as I've ever seen it.

Shy Elf.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:24:55 PM EST

none

Me too.  It was mid-morning, and they had the usual 4 voting booths set up, but this time they set it up in the school cafeteria  with the dining tables out.  Since they have optical scan ballots, people were just taking them and walking over to somewhere nowhere close to anyone else and filling them out.  I was the 9th person voting at the same time.  I've never seen anything close to that here.  The vote count the machine was displaying was already higher than it normally is in the afternoon.

15

Hey Alan Keyes Is On My Ballot!

thefadd.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 01:54:36 PM EST

none

I gotta think about this now. I can just tell people I voted for the black dude ;-)

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

17

^ 15

Dude Said...

thefadd.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:23:35 PM EST

5.00 (personal)

An hour and fifteen minutes. I live three doors down from my polling place, the local fire station. This is generally awesomeness 'cause I can just roll out of bed, shuffle on down and inkadot some ballot. But THIS MORNING the line is all the way to my front door. Add to that the people protesting Prop 8 100 feet in either direction and you've got lots of intermittent honking and cheering.

Dude who is checking people's addresses said the line is about an hour and fifteen minutes. There's tons of young people in line--young people never vote at my polling station and it's not as if our neighborhood demographic has changed. Man, I freakin hate not voting first thing in the morning. It makes me feel like my vote doesn't count (hah!). But I'm gonna have to go back after lunch.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

20

Re: Election 2008: The Home Stretch

port1080.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 02:44:17 PM EST

none

Wife & I walked to the local fire company to vote around 10:45am this morning - it was good timing, after the before work crowd but just before the lunch crowd.  We didn't have to wait to vote, but as we were walking out the door a line was forming again as the lunch folks were coming in.  Overall it went smoothly, no problems.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

26

Urkel will love this...

T Slothrop.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 04:12:23 PM EST

none

Black Panthers with nightsticks acting as "observers" at a Philadelphia precinct.

Your authority is not recognized here in Fort Kickass...

28

^ 26

Re: Urkel will love this...

Steve Urkel.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 04:22:29 PM EST

5.00 (streetwise, brilliant)

Sepatown!

32

^ 28

Sepatown!? Pootie Tang!!

permazorch.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 07:14:31 PM EST

none

Also, SEPTA town.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

43

^ 32

Re: Sepatown!? Pootie Tang!!

Steve Urkel.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:14:01 PM EST

none

How is it all these crap movies get funded but there is no money for Pootie Tang II?

45

^ 43

Re: Sepatown!? Pootie Tang!!

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:22:52 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

I blame the Hollywood liberals.

48

^ 43

Re: Sepatown!? Pootie Tang!!

permazorch.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:45:25 PM EST

none

I know. When film-making gets well and truly democratized, we'll see a fusion of Batman and Pootie Tang. I mean, his belt buckle does everything that Batman's arsenal does, at a fraction of the cost. They'd make a good team. No Robins Need Apply.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

34

^ 26

Re: Urkel will love this...

jwb.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 07:31:56 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

I'll see your Black Panthers and raise you some Minutemen.

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps has launched a "poll watching" campaign. According to President and Founder Chris Simcox, the organization is urging volunteers across the country to stand 75 to 100 feet outside polling stations with video cameras and to record any "suspicious activity" like "busloads of voters." Volunteers will be documenting license plates as a "deterrence effect against people voting illegally." The Hispanic National Bar Association has sent out a press release stating that the Minuteman campaign is "nothing more and nothing less than an effort to intimidate Hispanics and other minority voters on Election Day." (Thanks to Tracey Meares for the tip.)

37

^ 34

Re: Can't we all just get along?

pO157.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:14:54 PM EST

none

What is it with these retards (on both sides)? Can't they at least wait until the election is over before acting like jackasses and accusing the other side of fraud?

Why didn't these idiots go ring doorbells for their side before election day, make phone calls, write to the editor, whatever? Why is the only thing they find the time and energy to do is confrontational bombastic crap?

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

46

^ 34

Re: Urkel will love this...

Steve Urkel.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:23:24 PM EST

none

Why would anyone who is not an illegal alien be intimated by the Minutemen?

50

^ 46

Re: Urkel will love this...

permazorch.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:50:31 PM EST

4.66 (funny, funny, brilliant)

No matter the national origin, people want sex to last longer.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

47

^ 46

Re: Urkel will lurve this...

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:35:10 PM EST

3.00 (funny, offtopic)

Why would anyone who is not an illegal alien be intimated by the Minutemen?
Because of the visions of mushroom clouds. And the fact that with great moustache comes great power.

49

^ 47

Re: Urkel will lurve this...

Steve Urkel.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:47:16 PM EST

3.00 (interesting, offtopic)

The SPLC is always good for a laugh, isn't it?

"With his guns close at hand and visions of mushroom clouds blossoming darkly in his mind's eye"

By comparison, for the SPLC it's always the Fourth Reich in America that is blossoming darkly in the mind's eye.

52

^ 49

Re: Urkel will lurve this...

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:54:01 PM EST

3.00 (funny, obnoxious)

...blossoming darkly in the mind's eye
Darkly?! Oh no you did'n't!

36

^ 26

DEBUNKED!

logan.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:12:15 PM EST

3.00 (dissembling, informative)

Fox News, desperate to find any way to make Obama's victory seem illegitimate, ran with the Black Panther story without any sort of fact checking. Seriously, Black Panthers? What year is it in FoxWorld? Are they going to start warning us about the dangers of Jazz, fluoride in our drinking water, and the dangers of hanging out at the malt shop next?

A moment's research or even a short conversation with the "Black Panthers" would have shown that one was an official poll watcher from the Obama campaign who lived in the building where polling was taking place and that the other left peacefully when asked. Big surprise, a couple of Black dudes were hanging out in front of a building in North Philladelphia. Shock! Reports from on the scene (other than the observer from the McCain campaign) are that there was no confrontation and no intimidation on the part of the "Black Panthers". However, a group of people from the McCain campaign seemed to be trying to provoke the "Black Panthers". Instead of reporting both sides of the "story" or even trying to do the most basic level of journalism, Fox News let a McCain campaign stooge lie through his teeth and called it "news".

The whole thing is bullshit. The GOP know they're going to lose so they're trying to find a way to make Obama's election seem invalid. Give it up, you racist fuckbags, it's going to be President Obama in about 6 hours.

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.

44

^ 36

Re: UP AGAINST THE WALL MOTHERFUCKERS!

Steve Urkel.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:21:00 PM EST

3.33 (effluent, funny)

" Give it up, you racist fuckbags, it's going to be President Obama in about 6 hours."

Which you think might mitigate your racial hysteria  somewhat, but obviously not.

40

^ 36

Re: PUNKED!

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:43:28 PM EST

none

Christ, man, did you even read the webpage you linked to? It said,

...there were in fact two black panthers guarding the polling place, a nursing home on Fairmont Avenue in north Philadelphia, earlier this morning.

But she says one was an officially designated poll watcher (it was not immediately clear which municipal office had designated him in that role), and the second was his friend. The second panther, who left two or three hours ago, was the one with the nightstick...

An Obama volunteer confirmed that there were Black Panthers at the polling station and that one of them had a nightstick. What, exactly, was debunked?

53

^ 40

Sorry, Rookie Mistake. Here's the link.

logan.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:10:48 PM EST

none

D'oh! I forgot to post the link to Fox News' coverage. Rookie mistake, my bad. I'm posting from work and I made the mistake of trying to work while following the election results.

Here we go, here's the link to Fox's piece on the "event"

If you watch the interview you'll see a McCain campaign official claiming that he was personally threatened by Black Panthers who were blocking the entrance and intimidating voters. The Obama poll watcher refutes this, saying there was no blocking, no intimidation and no confrontation. Moreover, when asked by police, the "Black Panther" left without incident.

What the McCain stooge said was complete and utter bullshit. He even managed to imply that the Philadelphia Police were somehow complicit. Personally, my bet is that when we find the other "Black Panther" we'll discover that the "nightstick" was actually a cell phone.

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.

54

^ 53

Re: Sorry, Wookie Mistake. Here's the link.

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 10:24:21 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

...my bet is that when we find the other "Black Panther" we'll discover that the "nightstick" was actually a cell phone
Ah, so the "Obama volunteer" was lying about the nightstick?

38

First Polls Closing

uncarved block.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:16:52 PM EST

none

first beer opening soon. I'll need it-- chances are I'll be exposed to more cable news tonight than the rest of the election combined. Maybe it's time to try for the "turn off the sound and watch the body language" technique again. Problem with that is that you can't hear about all the legislative seats that are up or down.
    Think I'll stay with MSNBC for most of the night. Olbermann is actually fairly restrained when it isn't his show, though I'll probably tune out his little flunky what's-her-name. It will also be amusing to see Buchanan gloat all evening if the Republicans get blown away as predicted.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

41

^ 38

Re: First Polls Closing

Shy Elf.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 08:43:52 PM EST

none

But Olbermann and Madow are always inappropriately happy.  How can you tell when things are going well and when they are not?

89

^ 41

Re: First Polls Closing

JimmyHavok.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:37:54 PM EST

none

Didn't you get the talking points?  Olbermann and Madow are "angry" or "raving."

51

Dole To Concede

logan.

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 09:51:20 PM EST

none

MSNBC reports that Sen. Liddy Dole will concede in North Carolina. That makes this the first time since 1952 that there are no Doles or Bushes holding office. Oh well, they keep saying they need to shrink the Federal government anyway. Maybe they're just trying to make that happen one politician at a time.

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.

70

Landslide?

joshv.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:49:30 AM EST

none

He won 52% of the popular vote - let's not get carried away here.  Sure, it was an electoral landslide, but this was not any sort of a mandate.

71

^ 70

Re: Landslide?

port1080.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:57:24 AM EST

none

Sure, it was an electoral landslide, but this was not any sort of a mandate.

He won a larger share of the popular vote than Clinton did, either time (granted, he didn't have a third party candidate in the mix like Clinton did).  Considering that races have been tightening in the last half dozen or so cycle (probably due to micro-targeting of voters, which makes it a lot harder to run up big margins like we saw in the 60s, 70s, and 80s), a 52% win is pretty impressive.  And that will probably increase somewhat - all the votes still aren't in in some of the Western states where Obama ran the strongest.  Ultimately we could see that hit 53% or more, which would be damn impressive.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

74

^ 71

Re: Landslide?

joshv.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:17:28 AM EST

none

Impressive - sure.  Landslide?  Mandate?  No.

76

^ 74

Re: Landslide?

port1080.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:27:14 AM EST

none

I never brought up the word mandate - you did. I still hold that this was a landslide, at least compared to other recent elections, for all the reasons I already stated.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

78

^ 76

Re: Landslide?

joshv.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:06:24 PM EST

none

80

^ 78

Landslide or Victory?

MayorBob.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:18:01 PM EST

5.00 (penetrating)

Mandate or not, this was one of those elections people can truly point to and say, now that marks a moment in history.  Having lived through the landslide victory of Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964, I'd say the long term effects of landslides can be fleeting.  Barry Goldwater was crushed that year and LBJ ended up getting his head when it came to civil rights and fighting poverty.  But his mandate evaporated in just four years over a failed war in Southeast Asia.  And his war became a tar baby that Hubert Humphrey couldn't detach from and which Richard Nixon managed to use to his advantage by claiming some sort of secret plan to end it all.  Finally, considering the overall longterm impact of Goldwater Republicanism on the party and the nation, I think you might be able to make a case that Goldwater lost the battle but his vision of government won the war.

Tending to final details.

79

^ 78

Re: Landslide?

port1080.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:14:19 PM EST

none

I wouldn't call 24 years ago a recent election.  To put it in my perspective - I was three years old that time around.  For people younger than 42, this is about as much of a landslide as they've seen in elections they've legally been able to vote in.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

84

^ 74

Re: Landslide?

stevetherobot.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:33:08 PM EST

none

Didn't Bush claim that he had a mandate with 3% of the popular vote in 2004?

Besides, the electoral vote IS a landslide and it is significant that he carried states in the Northeast, Northwest, West, East, Southeast, Southwest and Midwest.  That shows more support than if he had just carried large states that are traditionally blue.

88

^ 84

Re: Landslide?

joshv.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST

5.00 (honest, interesting, astute)

Bush was wrong.  

I find it odd that people who were railing against the deficiencies of the electoral college in years past are now pointing to the vote of said august body as some sort of evidence of a landslide.

114

^ 88

Re: Landslide?

Chronon.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:51:39 PM EST

4.00 (countable)

I agree.  The disparity in the popular vote should not lead anyone to call this a landslide.

81

^ 70

Talking Mandate

uncarved block.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:23:38 PM EST

none

    The question is not just about the presidential election, but the rest of the government as well. As of right now, it's looking as if the Dems will hold 58 Senate seats, and 251 House seats (a 78 seat majority.) Just four years ago, when Republicans were dreaming of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate-- as of now, Democrats have fallen just short of making it a reality. If Obama- as the head of a party, and not just an individual- goes looking around for reasons to believe he has a mandate, these numbers are fairly strong.
    Will Obama go overboard? That remains to be seen. I do suspect that if a Republican president had won with these kinds of legislative gains, there would be all manner of talk from public conservative figures that it was time for some serious changes in Washington and the country, and that "the voters had spoken" . . .

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

83

^ 70

understanding mandates

wetkarma.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:01:56 PM EST

none

What do we mean when we talk about mandates?

I'm not sure I understand,  -- the man won while running on a platform which he will presumably try to implement. Are we saying that he doesn't have the majority of people/states supporting his platform?

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

94

what's the difference

thefadd.

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:34:20 PM EST

none

Q: What's the difference between George Bush and a black man?

A: George Bush isn't in the White House anymore.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

115

^ 94

Re: what's the difference

Chronon.

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 04:54:05 PM EST

4.00 (elected)

I think you have jumped the gun just a tad with this one.  ;)

199

Re: Election 2008: <strike>The Home Stretch

pO157.

Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:21:07 AM EST

none

Anybody here planning on going to his inauguration? The news says the DC area is already booking up fast.

Why are so few of us left active, healthy, and without personality disorders?

This story: 201 comments (8 from subqueue)
Post a Comment