> note the point spread between
> red and blue in this state.

Poysinally, I think the swing-edness of the state doesn't matter. You should vote for whoever you want to vote for, in all contexts. It wasn't Nader who cost Gore the White House in 2000: It was Gore. This ain't chess. Anybody who asks you to consider all the tertiary and tenth-order impacts of these decisions is undoubtedly working their own angle.

In my corner of the world, the victory of Obama is seen as a victory against racism. They are showing videos of people dancing in Africa, race-hustler Jesse Jackson crying and Oprah talking about a "Shift of Consciousness".

Do it means that, at last, the Black man will be able to get over his own feeling of impotence and do something with their existence without the assistance of the White man or Barak Obama will be called a "Uncle Tom" in 6 months?

He'll be called an Uncle Tom when he doesn't give them everything they've dreamed of on a silver platter, which of course isn't possible. I am physically ill. And DH is buying a shotgun today, to augment our pistol. Ammo locked up separetely from the gun of course, I have kids. But Obama has yet to see how those of us in flyover country cling to our guns. Heck, everyone I know who lives in DC (admittedly, only 5) have guns in their home, in blatant violation of the law. So I'd say most Americans cling to them, actually, not just those os us in the middle. As my dad, a lawyer of some serious success, said about owning one when it's illegal "I'll keep it in my house, and if I ever need to use it there, I'll worry about the consequences afterwards. At least I'm alive".

Amy, you're leading the rude charge with all your "how many languages" posts, and your "blindly following your party" among others. You set the rules and we follow. There is no post of how Palin is qualified that you would read, or aknowledge. You are simply blind there, much like the blacks who voted Obama because they are black. I'm not saying you must like her. But, short of actually BEING President, you can't have more executive experience than she does. Certainly no one else running did, definately not Barr. If you think being in Congress and taking lobbyist money while voting solely for the special interests (read, those who give you money) in your state makes you more qualified, then you are entitled to your opinion. Yet she holds a record of reducing government in her state, of governing based on the constitution and NOT her personal beliefs, and enjoys a higher approval rating than any Congressman has. That's by the people actually being governed by her. I think they know better than ivory-tower intellectuals, but that's just me.

And here, in true Amy fashion of late: In how many languages do we have to post that a vote for a candidate is seen as EXACTLY that by his party? No matter how much you email them and say "I was really voting for a future candidate you MIGHT run someday?".

If you're looking for blind agreement with your posts on your blog, you have the right, but will need to go to approval-first posts.

OH, I think a lot of people who voted Bush his second term had voters remorse and tried to make up for it this time. Unfortunately, they made up for it by being just as stupid as last time. On the bright side, we're going all red in 2012! Can we hang on that long? Depends on how ballsy Iran and other terrorists get.

At this point the only hope I have is that Obama is such an awful president that he resigns in disgrace after destroying the world economy.

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

Well, the Democrats wanted to run against McCain. They finally got their wish.

Well, I'm Australian, not an American, but I believe this is a great moment in American history and although I'm an atheist I'm praying that Obama shows the people of the US that they got it right. He's really got his work cut out for him.

I don't know if Obama's victory is being seen so much as a victory against racism as evidence that the USA really is a place where you can achieve your dream if you work hard and smart enough, regardless of your ethnicity. That's got to be good for so many black Americans, young and old. And heck knows many of them need some inspiration to get themselves free of that ugly, destructive gangsta culture.

Of course some race hustlers like Jesse Jackson are taking comfort from it, but surely the good news is that their era is now over. (I doubt Oprah could she possibly get any more sanctimonious and annoying than she already is). Barack Obama didn't get to be President of the USA by relying on the black vote.

All through this process I believed that Obama could become President, while many friends here refused to concede that Americans would ever elect a black man. I insisted that the American people were not the racist rednecks stereotypes popularised in Hollywood movies. As far as I'm concerned this result vindicates my belief, and many of those friends have had to agree.

No doubt there will be plenty of people who will expect Obama to solve all their problems by waving a magic wand, based on shared ethnicity. That's a shame and they're destined to be disappointed, but would it be so very different if the new President were the first woman, first gay man, first anything?

I'm sure millions of people are now either very worried or bitterly disappointed, so all I can say is I hope the man lives up to the promise of his victory speech, for all Americans especially, but also the rest of the civilised world.

Amen, GMan!

I think there are lots of reasons for jubilation; this is an historic moment. A black man was elected President of the United States by the will of the American people, according to our Constitution. The system worked as it was supposed to. But this historic moment is only a moment. As GMan points out, there are bound to be disappointments. As Momof3 states, President Obama will be in trouble early with some of the people who voted for him because he won't solve all their problems for them. Some of that's inevitable. But President Obama has his work cut out for him either way.

I don't see any reason to despair, either. The dark night of socialism/communism/Obamunism/You-Name-It-ism isn't about to descend on the Republic. It seems to me that the GOP needs to figure out what it actually stands for, and, by the way, tell the rest of us. They've got their work cut out for them, too. The 2010 mid-terms will be here before you know it.

So, it's neither Armageddon nor Rapture. It's Wednesday, November 5th, 2008. I hope President Obama learns quickly and does a good job. I hope the Republicans can explain why we should vote for them. And I have to get back to work.

It would be pointless to argue for Palin's competence because your mind is already made up. You've seen the evidence and discounted it. I won't waste any time on it.

Done is done. BF and I have some guns and some gold coins (a freekin' bazillion of 'em! well okay, a hunnerd anyway) locked in the safe. We've still got some money in our bank accounts, and good credit scores. We've still got our brains, our work ethic, and our lives intact. Whatever happens, we're (seemingly) ready. (And if all else fails, I've still got my sword and longbow. But I ain't lookin' for a fight, just makin' sure my family is protected and cared for.) One day at a time, people, one day at a time. o.O

Momof3, I understand why you think Palin is qualified, and I certainly accept it as valid. Personally, I don't feel she's qualified, because I think her executive experience is on a much smaller scale than is necessary, especially in terms of foreign policy. However, I, like Amy (and surely you too) believe that Obama isn't experienced enough, either. As to which one's experience matters more - well, does it really matter enough to argue about it?

But here's the crux of the matter for me: I am pro-gun, pro-military funding, pro-sex, pro-abortion (more idiots need to have them) and pro-gay (including civil unions for all and the word marriage being left out of the government entirely). Therefore, regardless of experience, neither major party candidate claimed anything near the majority of my opinions, and as such voting for either of them would have been kind of a sellout to myself.

It doesn't matter who had the best chance of winning. Even though I'm not especially fond of Bob Barr, the Libertarians are the ones who come closest to my personal philosophies. As in, get government hands the hell of my money, my guns, and my morals.

Whoops. Last sentence, of = off.

Amy: I didn't vote for Bob Barr, but anyone who criticizes you for doing so is a moron. Sorry you're having to deal with that. You didn't want to vote for McCain, so you didn't - that's the way an election is supposed to work. And yes, those of us living in non-swing states do have that luxury. God bless the electoral college.

As for me, I welcome our new socialist overlords! I would feel a lot more optimistic about the next four years if any of the ideas they were proposing were new, though.

Anyway, my prediction is that Jindahl will be the Republican nominee in 2012. We'll see if I'm right. Maybe by then the GOP will have figured out what it stands for. Very grateful right now that the Supreme Court voted the way it did in the Keller case...

Well, there's a nasty GI virus going around here in MD, so I didn't vote for Bob Barr either. I was already sick to my stomach.

--
phunctor

At the very least - as a grateful (and good day to you, Crid!) resident alien here - I will no longer have to endure rants from friends and relatives abroad about Bush as the evil face of the moribund USA.

Though I will miss Amy's Palin posts...

Freedom does not die in one fell swoop but leaves slowly and unnoticed until it is gone. Make way for Chebama (and weep).

I believe the Republicans have lost their way. They no longer represent the values of Ronald Reagan, but have become a party of big government. Perhaps they will take the time required to reconnect with their roots and voters. I hope they do because the Obama alternative is scary. The last thing Americans need is a party that is anti-free trade, pro-mortgage subsidies, and thinks progressive income tax regimes are the solution.

Even though I didn't vote for Obama (and wouldn't have even if he'd paid me to), I will admit that the US has made history by electing him President. Of course, if McCain had won, the US would have made history with the first female VP. And while I don't agree with Palin's religious nutter-ness, I would have accepted her as our VP. Is she qualified? Moot point now. However, I don't think that she presented herself well in this race, and I don't deny that some additional seasoning would do her good. Of course, I could say the same of Obama. Personally, I don't think ANY of the candidates presented themselves well. Dunno what's in store for the US in the next four years, and I just hope it's not as bad as I think it will be. (Did that make sense?)

Whether you voted for Obama or not, I'd think you'd hope for the best -- that he turns out to be a wise, effective leader. Hoping he falls on his ass because your candidate didn't win is petty and immature, like stomping on the last delicious cupcake so no one else can have it.

The fact is, all you can really learn from a presidential campaign is how the candidates go about trying to win. You can form opinions about what their actual principles are, and what they mean to do if/when they reach office, but all you really know is what they said and did with the ultimate goal of winning the race.

The deed is done, and we will see what comes of it over the next months and years. Personally, I don't completely trust either candidate, but I think the better bet won.

And yes, I realize that others' mileage may vary on that.

As Amy can attest, I have been an ardent Republican for years (recently switched to DTS - a gut-wrenching decision to be sure). I was for McCain in 2000 (even casting my vote for him here in California after he had bowed out of the race), and I was for him again this cycle.

Governor Palin--> simply too inexperienced. I am not basing this on Katie Couric interviews or SNL skits, it is the plain truth and anybody who attempts to dispute this is just plain full of sour grapes.

I did end up casting a ballot for Obama. I was not voting for him, and I was not voting against McCain, I was doing what Amy was doing - casting my protest vote against what my (now former) party had become - meglo-maniacal jerks. If California had been close (cough, hack), I would have cast my vote for McCain, as I truly believe that he would have made a better President.

Nonetheless, Obama's election is a monumental message to America in that 40 years after civil rights workers were being murdered with at least passive support by government and law enforcement authorities and people were literally putting their life on the line to help people do something so basic as vote, the son of a white woman and a black man from Kenya has been elected President of the great United States.

In a past life, I had been the Republican nominee for a California State Assembly seat. My district was comprised of the worst ghetto parts of Oakland (and Alameda and Piedmont). When I walked precincts in these crack/gang/drive-by infested areas and saw the poverty and lack of hope, I was disillusioned with what had happened in the black community in a mere 25 years since the hope and "stick-to-it-ivness" engendered by Dr. King, Malcolm X, Rev. Abernathy, etc. The real black leaders were gone and the whores like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton had taken over.

Obama may be called an Uncle Tom (in fact I am convinced he shall), however he will also be th inspiration for many children who can now see a modern day role model to live up to. This is the true victory of last night.

There will be *many* times (I am sure) that I shall disagree with President Obama, but please remember the following: As the first black President, he will *not* run the risk of being run out in four years. Will things push back to the left after the excesses of Bush 43 and the neo-con idiots that descended upon DC in 2000? Most assuredly. But I honestly believe that they shall not push too far to the left. A properly chastised GOP will be keeping a sharp eye and will work with Obama to minimize further electoral losses.

Time to play the hand we have been dealt, folks. Let's just dump the sour grapes and do so in a calm and professional manner...

Thoughts on election?

I felt incredible relief for the first time in 8 years.
!! The End of the Bush !!
* There is justice.
* Democracy can work.
* Americans can learn
* There is Hope.

I am still on the edge of my seat, because the world is so messed up from this 8 year old Right Wing March.

The party in the White House makes all the difference.
* You must be kidding to deny that.

The 21st century is going to require global cooperation.
* Especially in the White House.

If McCain had won, we could have had 4 more years.
* Of this?

Thank all your Gods and spirits:
* 4 more years is not a problem now.

As Palin said: God will make this election turn out right.

* Brian: Even you will be pleasantly surprised. Maybe more than most.

> Anyway, my prediction is that
> Jindahl will be the Republican
> nominee in 2012.

My last thought before greeting the sandman lsat night as well... But it's not even about color, it's 'who else they got'? Can you even name any of the other contenders from all those debates? ('Um... Giuliani! Um, Huxtworthy! Um....')

Anyway, I think gold coins and sidearms on a mountainside is a little disproportionate.

> - as a grateful (and good
> day to you

I have no problem with resident aliens as an archetype, there are just a few certain ones who creep me out.

> I will miss Amy's Palin posts...

See you in 2012.

I think McCain is a good underdog, but if 2000 was really all tits and champagne I don't think he would've gone so .5gt^2 on poor Maria Shriver like that. But then not being a psychologist or a psychic, what do I know about the depths of the man's soul? Though I guess I have to agree with Matt about how disturbing it is to see grown men with doubts -- which of course is why we both love George W. Bush so much and wish he could be president forever.

Last night I saw this via Breitbart:

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Obama's victory was a landmark for equality.

"Twenty-five years ago Martin Luther King had a dream of an America where men and women would be judged not on the colour of their skin but on the content of their character," Rudd told reporters. "Today what America has done is turn that dream into a reality."

He's off by twenty years (the best twenty years of my life, too). Presumably Rudd and his entire press office are too young to know what they fuck they're talking about. But perhaps this is the complaint of an elderly crank; in a few short weeks, I'll be older than the President of the United States.

I marvel that every four years America basically has a revolution. Every four years we remake our government...peacefully and with the consent of the governed.

The loser of the presidential contest doesn't head for the hills to fight to the death; he doesn't get shot by the winner's forces. He makes a concession speech and goes back to his life. Perhaps even to contest for the presidency again some day.

The outgoing president doesn't get hauled off to a show trial and a hasty execution or flee to exile in another country. He becomes a statesman and makes a snootful of money giving speeches and writing his memoirs. He isn't written out of history. His life and administration are memorialized in a presidential library for all to see.

And we've been doing it that way (more or less) for over two hundred years.

What an exceptional country this is.

It is sad and amazing that most people see the actions of government as being the result of one person, the President. The financial crisis convinced most swing voters that the economy had to be given to the Democrats as the more trustworthy party. It is a great irony that the wrong party is blamed.

The current financial problems were created by government pressuring the loan market to make bad loans, and empowering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up those loans so that the process could continue. This was promoted by Democrats and tolerated by Republicans, so there is blame all around, but not for all Democrats or Republicans.

The Democrats said "we are arranging loans to good people who will pay back the money". The Republicans couldn't say loudly "we don't want to make those loans, they are too risky", although they said it softly in committee.

The government ran an off-budget loan-department (Fannie and Freddie) that borrowed $5.4 trillion ($5,400 billion), as much as the total debt of the US before that. Fannie and Freddie were regulated and directed by the House Financial Affairs committee, chaired by Barney Frank (D. MA) and controlled by the Democratic majority for the last two years. The bad loans were made mostly in the last two years, under their direction and encouragement.

I predict more irony. For eight years the cry has been "It is the fault of the devil President Bush". In the next four years, despite a Democratic President Obama, an regardless of any continuing economic problems, the cry will be "It is the fault of the prior devil President Bush".

See We Guarantee It

Andrew Garland
EasyOpinions.blogspot.com

The financial crisis convinced most swing voters that the economy had to be given to the Democrats as the more trustworthy party. It is a great irony that the wrong party is blamed.

That's because most voters only remember as far back as the Clinton administration and think Democrats have greater economic competence...betraying a lack of understanding of the economic underpinnings of the Clinton years (an upswing also built on a bubble) as well as a lack of understanding of the current economic situation.

In August was the Jackal born;
The Rains fell in September;
"Now such a fearful flood as this,"
Says he, "I can"t remember!"
- Rudyard Kipling

The young Obama-maniacs don't remember the bewildering ineptitude of the last "change" candidate we knee-jerked into office, Jimmy Carter.

They don't remember a president who let a Congress controlled by his own party turn the presidency from an equal branch of the government into a adjunct committee.

They don't remember incompetence so deep that a sitting president's own party almost nominated someone else to run for his second term.

I harbor hope that Obama won't let himself be turned into the second coming of the Man from Plains. But then I turn on the tv and see the smug grin on Nancy Pelosi's face and realize that her agenda and Obama's are not the same. And Pelosi is a capable and experienced political infighter where Obama is not.

I find it a little disturbing this talk of buying guns. It sounds as if some of you feel there'll be black gangs raiding our homes now - just because we have a black president? That's a bit extreme, isn't it?

However, I am buying gold. In fact, I have one of the few financial advisors who predicted this financial collapse four years ago. He began steering his clients away from US stocks and bonds and diversifying us globally, which has helped minimize the damage.

And he says the US dollar will likely collapse. At the very least, it must devalue. They are printing money now - actually have been for awhile - and dumping it into the system, which will devalue the dollar. There's even behind the scenes talk of going to another currency - the "Amero" or whatever they'll call it. We'll pay back our debts in worthless currency and start over.

The people who will be most hurt are the responsible people who hold their cash in CDs, etc. You'll get your money back, but it may be worth half of what it was.

I don't know if any of this will happen - just that he has an excellent track record, so far. But, to deal with this crisis, either candidate would've had to raise taxes on those of us who pay the most taxes. I will undoubtedly pay more, which I'll hate, but it would not have mattered whichever candidate won. They have to raise taxes and cut spending now if we have a prayer to get out of this mess.

The cutting spending part is what worries me with the dems in complete control, but, as an act of faith and because I find him inspirational, I voted Obama because he has surrounded himself with the best financial advisors - people like Paul Volker and Warren Buffett. He seems to really want to fix this, not just continue the republican measures of tax breaks for the wealthy (although I love them!) while failing to reduce spending, which clearly hasn't worked.

The only thing that surprises me about the Obama win is that it was this close. I was half expecting something like Nixon in '72, where he won 49 states. (I didn't really have a good idea about which state would be this year's Massachusetts, though.)

What boggles my mind is that Prop. 8 won in California. This means that thousands of folks must have voted both for Obama and Yes on 8. I can't begin to imagine the sort of person who could do both of those things.

Rex Little wrote "What boggles my mind is that Prop. 8 won in California. This means that thousands of folks must have voted both for Obama and Yes on 8. I can't begin to imagine the sort of person who could do both of those things."

Actually, it makes perfect sense. California has a high hispanic population and a decent black population. Hispanics really got behind Obama. Obviously black voters did as well. Both groups have (statistically speaking) consistent anti-homosexuality viewpoints.

The folks who voted for Prop 8 *and* for Obama were predominantly white liberals.

That makes sense, as our amendment 2 in FL banning gay marriage also passed, while Obama carried the state.

NO, we don't think black gangs will be raiding our homes. We think Obama is going to make it illegal for us to buy them, and we want to get them while we can. Because I don't know where you live, but here in Texas we are allowed to defend ourselves, and we expect to be able to. Whether it's from a home invader or serial rapist or a rattlesnack or whatever. Nothing to do with race, everything to do with the right to bear arms. Oh wait, I forgot, everything now has to do with race. Because of our post-racial candidate. yes.

> I find it a little disturbing
> this talk of buying guns.

Same here. See late-night comments.

Momof3, that's always a republican scare tactic - that they'll take away our guns. But they haven't done that. Clinton was in and maybe he wanted to stop importing AK47s or something - but, really, who needs a machine gun?

The Dems know it would be political suicide to ban guns altogether. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I personally don't think it's a bad thing to require stricter controls - better background checks. If you're a law-abiding citizen who just wants to protect your family, that shouldn't be a problem.

I mean, since "Jessica's law", I have to submit to a background check just to VOLUNTEER at my child's school now - in case I might be a child predator - so waiting a few days to pick up a gun seems a small sacrifice to make for safety.

Well, I also voted 3rd party for President. I knew Obama would win by a landslide. It is what the republicans needed in order to become viable again. They didn't choose the right guy to run as the republican, in my opinion, however, I still knew it was an uphill battle for the republicans to win this election. I live in Alaska, and we stayed mostly republican this time around. As for our governor, she was not the same as she was back at home running the state. I am curious to see how she is accepted back. I do not think she was ready - yet. Anyway, as mainly libertarian, I am hopeful we will get there. Look up the Campaign for Liberty's meetup group near you!!

What type of gun would Jesus buy?

If you're a law-abiding citizen who just wants to protect your family, that shouldn't be a problem.

Well, it apparently was, right after Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005. The NOPD went around confiscating everyone's guns, except for the looters' guns, and refused to give them back. The NRA filed a lawsuit and had to return to the state capital 3 times to ensure that all the guns were returned to their rightful owners. Most were, but a few were not. And more than a few were returned sans cases. If the NOPD can do it, what's to stop the National Guard from doing the same?
Just sayin'. o.O

>>The NRA filed a lawsuit and had to return to the state capital 3 times to ensure that all the guns were returned to their rightful owners.

Flynne,
I imagine, though there were more than a few never rightfully-owned shooters that were left unclaimed after that NO confiscation!

I'm conflicted.

I'm glad the old neocon guard was ended. But that the GOP having lost its ways allowed another guard of the same type to appear. We're headed toward the same ant hill of totaliatrianism, we've just managed to switch tracks.

Until the GOP stops pandering to the religious right, they will never NEVER get back on the right track and NEVER get a chance to stop this train towards tyranny.

Such pandering has cost this country dearly. over the last 7 years, and more importantly, over the next 4 (at least).

Less than you would think, Jody. o.O

Why is it people think its a good thing to take away law abiding citizens guns if they catch a few bad guys in the process?

He's off by twenty years (the best twenty years of my life, too). Presumably Rudd and his entire press office are too young to know what they fuck they're talking about. But perhaps this is the complaint of an elderly crank; in a few short weeks, I'll be older than the President of the United States.

Dude was misquoted. He said 45 years.

Well, Katrina was a natural disaster, and as someone who lives in an area afflicted with hurricanes, I know all too well that local government will try everything possible to maintain order. We're not even allowed to have liquor once there's a hurricane coming. Of course, no one follows that rule, but the stores are required to stop selling alcohol to us at a certain point.

Often, citizens are denied entry to their own homes after a storm, yet the Guard probably has the right to enter and search. So, it seems, under natural disaster scenarios, police and the National Guard are generally allowed to set whatever rules they want, which is pretty scary, because that is precisely the time when the right to bear arms may be necessary.

But that isn't due to the presidency. This has been the case for a long time.

>>Why is it people think its a good thing to take away law abiding citizens guns if they catch a few bad guys in the process?

Fair question, lujlp.

I had a knee-jerk reaction to Flynne's example only because of the NO location. (I first visited the city in the Feb immediately before Katrina & got talking to a very laid back community organizer. He'd come to the city in the sixties "to find himself" and ended up loving the place and staying. He volunteered the fact that illegal guns were a massive problem among the young, not because the gangs were unusually prone to violence. But just because they were so commonplace, they were regarded as a standard accessory...it's a detail that stuck.)

Thoughts?

It's wonderful that America is celebrating her first black president, and that, for the moment at least, the air is filled with hope and optimism.

It's inspiring that a profound change in the political landscape of the world's most powerful nation has once again taken place in an entirely peaceful and orderly manner, without a hint of the riots, murders, coups by dictators,civil unrest or outright civil wars that are the still the curse of politics in most countries on this sad earth.

It's depressing that 52 % of the American electorate voted for a man who promised to give free health care and handouts to 95 % of Americans and get the other 5 % of Americans to pay for it all.

It's a travesty that the Oath of Office will be taken by a man who believes that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed because it does not mandate or allow the redistribution of wealth.

It's frightening that America may have just elected a second Jimmy Carter, when a showdown with Iran is inevitable, and this time the ayatollahs will have ballistic missiles and nukes.

It's too easy to picture President Obama addressing the nation in a fuzzy sweater, and telling Americans to turn down their thermostats and surrender.

Not sour grapes because the team I wanted to win didn't, just some sober reflections.

Hence my concerns, Martin. Seriously, I'm mostly a peace-loving, nonviolent, old-school hippie, but believe me when I say, I'd rather have guns and money and not need them, than need guns and money and not have them. Warren Zevon would back me up on this. o.O

Dems know it would be political suicide? How? The dem who most supports getting rid of the second ammendment completely just got elected in with a super-lib congress behind him. I'd say they are going to feel mandated to take the guns, along with the wealth, but maybe I'm wrong.

It's not paranoia if they really are after you. And if he doesn't try it? So what? We have a gun we would have bought eventually anyway. Like Flynne and her gold, maybe she won't need it, but what if she does?

I simply cannot WAIT to get my condo paid off. As soon as that happens, and a national health care system is put in place, I can quit my job and only have to work four months a year - just enough to keep food in the fridge and the lights on. I won't have to pay any taxes and can spend the remaining eight months of the year biking.

Kind of reminds me of the Y2K scare. I had friends who were so convinced everything was going to turn into a Mad Max movie - they bought gold, generators, stocked up on food. I'd actually say now is really the time to do that but not because of an Obama presidency - if anything, more due to the last one. This global financial crisis and recession has been brewing for awhile.

It's just not so simple as Dems are bad and want to take your guns and money. After all, Katrina happened when a republican was president. Was that why guns were seized? No.

As a property owner and small businessperson, I am certainly scared of redistribution of wealth, but I've actually been battling this in various ways for a long time, during both republican and democratic administrations. The Dems want to take my land through emminent domain to make a nice environmental park or bird sanctuary, and the republicans are usually just as bad pandering to the environmentalists. My taxes haven't gone down during the Bush years. Each side wants my money and my land to "redistribute" - they just call it different names and give it different justifications.

what kills me is that some people think this whole 'redistribution of wealth' is like.. a new thing.

because, what the HELL was the last 7 years? You've got McCain campaigning to get the bailout passed. What the hell was that?

I don't understand how some of you can tolerate socialism under a Republican government, and at the same time, get really pissy about socialism under a Democrat government.

ffs, if Obama is a socialist, Nixon was a commie. And NEITHER is acceptable.

> Dude was misquoted. He said
> 45 years.

Yew sher? OK, then, the press is incompetemt. Wouldn't surprise me none...

I love how so many people who two weeks ago thought America was too racist to elect a black man now think that America was able to see past his race and elect based upon character.

Barack Obama has no character to speak of. The only reason he could give to elect him was novelty.

America's first affirmative-action president. Chosen not for merit, but solely to serve as retribution for past injustices.

* Brian: Even you will be pleasantly surprised. Maybe more than most.

No, LPB, I doubt very seriously Obama will impress me at all. I'll be surprised if he makes it past two years without resigning in disgrace.

* Americans can learn

Farker - there is a difference between the government bailing out the businesses that they put under in the first place and stealing from Bill Gates to buy the votes of half of Mississippi. Failure to notice this causes you to make very silly statements.

Hmm. More opinions about guns that seem to lack background. Try this quiz, but don't forget to check more of the site out.

New Orleans and Katrina came up. That situation should have taught lots of people lessons. It's not enough to just point at other people or government. Ordinary people can be a tremendous burden, to say the least, and The Big One in California is going to be U G L Y.

So learn from the mistakes and experience of others.

No, the people in your area cannot be expected to be "better" in some way. Don't just skim over this. This lesson should take time to learn properly.

I'm a college student in North Carolina. My Campus last night was absolutely electrified over Obama's win. The atmosphere, political or otherwise, is very upbeat, and its a nice change.

My thoughts? as John Scalzi, over on another blog put it, "The man does not fart cinnamon scented rainbows." I think thats the best way to put it. He's a politician, not a matyr, and he's going to disappoint those people whose view might be colored by that belief.

I might be one of the few people who was going to be genuinely happy regardless of who won. Each candidate had ideals or choices I cared little for (Obama's FISA voting, McCain's VP pick), but all in all is such a marked improvement from the last 8 years of Bush that I feel content. I don't know how good a president Obama is going to be, but I feel like giving the benefit of the doubt. For me, it's not just "change", whatever changes he's proposing. I think it has to do with the general attitude towards politics. It had nothing to with who was republican and who was democrat. A year ago, i'd be hard pressed to find someone who wanted to engage in political discussion. Everybody was glum, disgusted and apathetic. Now, I see some passion. Whether or not its misplaced, I won't judge. Im not a political expert, Im a college student trying to get a BFA in film. I guess that makes me the "future of the country", as I keep hearing. If that's the case, well Im happy Obama is in it, and I look forward to seeing what happens in regards to prop 8.

He he he The day after he wins, and his big economic plan is to lower economic expectations? Oh, and has also already said "things may not happen in one term". So, basically, day before election it's vote me, I'll give you the moon for free, the day after it's hey, don't expect anything from me!

Buyers remorse setting in yet? No? Still hung-over? We'll give you a few more days.

Notice, I am not saying expectations don't need to be lowered. They do. This is the man who was asked point-blank if was going to have to scale back his trillion dollar plans based on the economy in the debate, and he said No. Certainly not before he was elected, at least, is apparently what he meant by No.

Momof3, what else was he supposed to say? The American electorate doesn't want to hear that they'll have to make sacrifices (though, as I recall, Obama DID say exactly that in the debate). Nobody wants to know how bad this will get. We are a society of spenders, not savers, and people who want something for nothing. Those of us who know we'll have to pay are the minority - the rest are talking about retiring and living off the dole, as if it's funny. He asked us all last night for our help - for our work - and that's what it will take. This economy is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, so he is smart in lowering expectations.

I didn't hear McCain saying anything about cutting back his programs either. It's sad but you can't get elected in this country without promising "tax cuts" for people who don't even pay taxes. Translated, that's just welfare. But both sides do it - Bush just did it with his tax rebates, even when we were deeply in debt.

Radwaste, thanks for posting that piece about the aftermath of Katrina - very informative. I went through hurricane Andrew and likely could face the same sort of situations.

Amy,

Further to your analysis of McCain, I highly recommend that you and your many readers watch the 1948 film, State of the Union: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040834

It illustrates that even if a person has the noblest of intentions of running for the highest office, they can't get there without accepting endless favors and making endless promises.

Case in point is Obama's commitment to end secret ballots in union certification. Who, in their right mind, can argue that this is a good thing?

Thoughts on the election? That being elected does not mean the "experience" people insist Gov. Palin must have is automatically conveyed to Sen. Obama. I'm still wondering how many people think Barack was really running against Sarah. That's who was in the spotlight for "inexperience". And nobody watched Anderson Cooper pin him to the mat on his plans for capital gains taxes.

There are still retards who think that raising taxes always raises revenue. Nope.

I wish him luck, because whatever he does will affect us, and because I think he's being propped up by a bunch of people who think they're going to get something now. I really want to know who he's proposing for his Cabinet.

And of you want irony - he will operate in Iraq in accord with the exact same laws Pres. Bush has for years: laws passed by Congress. You may recall his being a member of that body. I bet nobody gets to call him a war criminal, no matter what he does.

I was disappointed that McCain did not win and I would support Obama only IF he releases his real birth records and his Harvard education records to prove he is an american citizen.

Somebody in the house or senate or McCain should have the balls to demand that Obama prove he is eligible to run for president.

for any of you still believing Palin was 'experienced' enough

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc

EXPLAIN THAT!!!!!!!!!!!

"And I'm still waiting for word on why Sarah Palin is qualified...maybe she'll be able to study up in time for 2012"

Alright already!

Sarah Palin's Record and Qualifications:

Yes, her time in high executive office was too short for comfort. No, she didn't just stumble into the highest approval ratings of any Governor in any of the 50 states. Being Governor is a buck stops here, nowhere to hide position. The Senate and Congress are chock full of pompous parasites who eventually get promoted to high positions simply by sticking around long enough and bloviating often enough (Biden is a perfect example). They all have hundreds of other Senators and Congressmen to hide behind, and a President to blame everything on. If a Governor is useless, it will be painfully obvious to everyone in the state.

The prelude to Sarah's Governorship was her appointment to the chairmanship of the Oil & Gas Conservation Commission in 2003, after a lost run at the Lieutenant-Governorship. She quickly found out that almost everyone around her was bending over to get fucked by Big Oil.

She focused her attention on the state GOP chairman, Randy Ruedrich, who was doing back-room deals, refusing to file disclosure reports, etc. When she challenged him on this, he told her to fuck off.

She went to the Attorney-General, Gregg Renkes, who said the same, and threatened her with prosecution if she didn't clam up.

Then she went to Governor Frank Murkowski, who had appointed her in the first place. When he ignored her, she resigned from her plum job. Then she went public. Thanks entirely to her efforts, Ruedrich was forced to admit guilt and pay fines, and Renkes was forced to resign.

Flush with success, she decided to go after Murkowski for the Governorship. She had made bitter enemies of the entire GOP establishment, and got no support from Big Oil, Big Labor, greens, or practically any other organization, but she beat the pants off him anyway.

Having entered the Governor's Mansion largely on the strength of her popular persona as a frontier superheroine rooting out corruption, she did a pretty decent job of shoring up her state's fiscal responsibility. She vetoed $ 500 million in capital projects. Federal pork and earmarks dropped dramatically during each of her 2 years as Governor, after rising relentlessly during the terms of every previous Alaskan Governor. She put $ 7 billion of surplus revenue into state savings. Genuine fiscal conservatives in high office are rare as hen's teeth. Obama and Biden are two of the most shameless profligates. Her record in this regard is good.

One of her first acts in office was to appoint an honest former Democratic legislator to help her draw up a comprehensive ethics reform bill. After endless kicking and screaming from legislators who feared being caught, she got it passed just the way she wanted it in 2007, with bipartisan support.

When she came into office, she inherited the North Slope Natural Gas Pipeline Project. This had been going nowhere for 20 years. Her predecessor Murkowski had worked out a back-room deal that pretty well allowed the Big Three (ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips) to hold the state to ransom, have their taxes frozen for 30 years, get everything on their terms, and be handed $ 4 billion in state subsidies.

She tossed that in the trash, opened up the bidding process, made everything fully transparent to the public and the legislature, and ended up signing a deal with TransCanada that fully asserted the state's authority, guaranteed it a healthy portion of all future revenues, and was passed with overwhelming support from both sides of the legislature.

She's certainly well onformed on health care in Alaska. She introduced the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act, which addressed transparency, choice, and the elimination of bureaucratic obstacles to efficient care. This hasn't passed, because of fierce opposition from the health care establishment, not because it was bad legislation. We will all soon find out how well Obama's health care schemes pan out.

Those are the highlights. When you stack it up against the pathetic results Biden has to show for his 36 years in the Senate, or that Obama has to show for his 10 years as a state and federal Senator, it looks pretty good.

She fought fiercely against corruption wherever she saw it, especially in her own party, at the risk of her career. Compare that to Obama. who never lifted a finger against the Chicago machine. He just crawled up it's ass as far as he could go and stayed there.

She did everything possible to make the workings of her office and the legislature transparent to the public.

She built a tremendously appealing public persona, then did an excellent job of living up to it.

She never had trouble getting bipartisan support for her goals and initiatives, and she made lots of the right enemies.

Her fiscal record as Governor stands up very well. She knows how to get a deal signed, while making sure the State's interests are protected, not abused.

Her views on abortion bother a great many people, including me. But she never used the power of her Governor's office to try and foist them on people or into law in any way. On the contrary, she stubbornly resisted all efforts by right-to-life organizations to force the issue of abortion onto the State's agenda. In studying her record as Governor, I could find no instance where she caved in to any pressure groups. How well will Obama be able to resist the insistent demands of black power quacks, environmentalists, pacifists, radical feminists, and all the other grievance-culture parasites that infest the Democratic party?

She has absolutely no fear of eco-nazis. The nation's energy needs come first. Let the caribou take care of themselves.

Yes she's a quick study. On subjects she knows well, like energy, she's a match for any politician in the Capitol. You've insisted many times that Biden "knows" foreign policy, in the face of overwhelming evidence that he knows hardly anything, he's just been spouting off about it for 36 years. She's already learned more than he's forgotten.

All of these are damn fine traits for anyone in the Oval Office. As a bonus, she lives and emdodies the frontier spirit of self-reliance. A healthy dose of that in a future President will be just what the country needs to help it recover from the Obamunist's welfare state.

Yes, she could definitely use a few more years of national experience, but on balance, I still think she was by far the most attractive candidate running in 2008, and not just because she's a MILF. She certainly has a promising future, and yes I'll be cheering for her in 2012.

You're welcome to challenge or refute any of the above, but please do something more substantial than mocking her folksy speech patterns or giving your impression from a few botched interviews that she's incurious.

dragonslayer - Obama's an American citizen, 9/11 was not an inside job, and Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.

Get over it.

Farker - I for one, never argued that she was "experienced enough", just that she had more relevant experience than did Obama. Which is still true.

Oh, and Obama's already picked a thug for his chief of staff. It's gonna be an interesting four years. "Nice newspaper you've got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it."

I don't care if she is condolleeza rice. if she can't name anybody in Nato, she doesn't need to be anywhere NEAR the GOP campaign.

and they bullshitted us for two fvcking months, telling us how qualified she is.

NONSENSE.

This is only the beginning.

"EXPLAIN THAT!!"

Farker, all of the unverifiable 3rd party claims against her in that tape were made by bitter losers desperately looking for a scapegoat. There's no excuse for her train wreck on CBS, and I'm not offering one. Just saying her record as Governor is a more reliable thing to judge her by.

fvck it, i'll drink your kool-aid.

Sarah Palin is awesome. I want her to run in 2012. She'll have four more years of governing experience. Go Sarah Go!

Guns, money - oh no, they're going to take it all away!?! Fuck!?!

You guys sound like leftwingnuts did eight years ago. Seriously. And while I'll admit that bush and then the republican majority in congress did manage to fuck things up pretty good, we're all still here and alive - most of what was predicted then didn't come to pass.

I have to admit that I find the alarmist bullshit rather amusing, if for no other reason than I know that some of you actually believe it. Reminds me greatly of my crazy conspiracy theory friend who knows there is an alien/UN base on the dark side of the moon.

DuWayne - unless you believe his record and his campaign promises are meaningless, if the opportunity presents itself (and with the Reid-Pelosi Congress it just might) he will restrict or outlaw personal firearms ownership. And he will be raising taxes, or he's going to give up on a bunch of his redistribution programs.

Eh. One socialist replaces another. One hands out government cheese to "poor" people with air conditioning and big screen televisions. The other hands out giant subsidies to big businesses who suddenly become "poor" by taking insane risks. One subsidizes sloth and the other fraud.

My feelings are double plus ungood. I'm practicing my Newspeak for the inauguration.

Diversity is Unity.
Change is Stability.
Individual Freedom is Slavery to Everyman.
Tolerance is Hatred of Your Own Nation.

Moving swiftly on, I agree with this guy. (h/t Instapundit)

Anyway, my prediction is that Jindahl will be the Republican nominee in 2012.

My last thought before greeting the sandman lsat night as well... But it's not even about color, it's 'who else they got'? Can you even name any of the other contenders from all those debates? ('Um... Giuliani! Um, Huxtworthy! Um....')

The GOP is sitting pretty right now in the next candidate department. The next GOP nominee will not come from the debates. In 2012, the GOP will have (at the very least):

Of course, the GOP will also have Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee.

Thompson and Giuliani never behaved like serious candidates. The campaign was a country club excursion for them. Their apathetic behavior helped diminish the GOP campaign this year. They're done.

Romney's a Mormon and may never get over that hurdle, no matter his experience or competence.

Huckabee's not a conservative, he's an evangelical. His appeal in this campaign was that he wasn't the Mormon, Romney, or the non-evangelical, McCain. Palin, Jindal, Sanford, and Pawlenty can all overcome Huck's edge in that regard.

Many new names and faces were bandied about as McCain's running mate before Palin was chosen. McCain's parting favor to the GOP is to leave them with a strong bench from which to chose Obama's '12 challenger.

The Dems can only hope Obama does them the same favor in chosing his cabinet - opting for some fresh new faces instead of the tired leftist standbys (like Biden). Choosing Napolitano as AG will be a start in that direction (assuming she does a good job).

Interesting commentary on the GOP strategy in 2012 from American Spectator (including a critique of Sarah Palin):

http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/11/06/strategy-for-2012

I marvel that every four years America basically has a revolution. Every four years we remake our government...peacefully and with the consent of the governed.

The loser of the presidential contest doesn't head for the hills to fight to the death; he doesn't get shot by the winner's forces. He makes a concession speech and goes back to his life. Perhaps even to contest for the presidency again some day.

The outgoing president doesn't get hauled off to a show trial and a hasty execution or flee to exile in another country. He becomes a statesman and makes a snootful of money giving speeches and writing his memoirs. He isn't written out of history. His life and administration are memorialized in a presidential library for all to see.

And we've been doing it that way (more or less) for over two hundred years.

What an exceptional country this is.

--------------

Thank you Conan, I needed that. My post-election cynicism was getting just a little too bleak. You're absolutely right, this is an exceptional country.