Just terrible how so many people living in America voted for the principle of taking the other person's money. Decent, self reliant people have no country they can call their own now. You cant own a home in many parts of the US without real concern the government will bankrupt you with confiscatory real estate taxes. Now the value of your home fluctuates greatly due to gov policies that cause pricing bubbles. It is difficult for a middle income person to save for retirement because of mandatory social security taxes. If democrats were fair minded they would allow individuals to opt out of their big government, big society programs. We are all forced to participate, to work for the state now. Thinking people must realize this is a bad thing.

Quoting mvantony: Nice diavlog.

Glenn hopes there will be a move toward increased political efforts (along with police action, where necessary) to undermine "the root causes" of radical Islam.

the efforts will have to be political because democrats are not willing to join the military and fight for whatever it is they believe in. It is not right for Obama to send red state americans to enforce his half baked foreign policy agenda. ( thinking Joe Biden here, and his proposal to partition Iraq ) What is the point of fighting the Taliban, if at the same time, you will not take action to prevent the Iranians from getting nukes?

Fine, thought-provoking DV. I've been losing it with Glenn in his more recent appearances here, but I think I've found a new respect for his head-space in this DV. Kind of too bad the DV ended so abruptly right in the midst of the question about whether the Republicans will go into full-on Obama take-down undermining slime starting even before the inauguration (as with their ad hominem bashing of the Clintons) or whether they will turn inward and try to define a more relevant vision for their own party. Probably a certain amount of both will occur, but with the Republicans, addiction to sliming and undermining has proven to be such a historically effective tool, I can't imagine it won't end up continuing to be the instrument of choice. EW

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Just terrible how so many people living in America voted for the principle of taking the other person's money. Decent, self reliant people have no country they can call their own now.

You cant own a home in many parts of the US without real concern the government will bankrupt you with confiscatory real estate taxes. Now the value of your home fluctuates greatly due to gov policies that cause pricing bubbles.

It is difficult for a middle income person to save for retirement because of mandatory social security taxes. If democrats were fair minded they would allow individuals to opt out of their big government, big society programs.

We are all forced to participate, to work for the state now. Thinking people must realize this is a bad thing.

What a weird post. Republican administrations are not for small government, but rather for wholesale wrecking of those essential functions in which the government engages, this whilst they are the most profligate spenders. They don't really encourage self-reliance, but rather instead engage in wholesale ripping off everyone on behalf the very, very rich as they themselves curry special

Thank you, Glenn, for admitting your mistake about Obama's strategy. At least some of the time, when you sit down in good faith at a table, the people who are trying to saw the table legs off expose and discredit themselves in the eyes of a larger audience. And then why litigate every difficult issue during the campaign, when a lot of it is going to have to be relitigated in the debate over policy and legislation?

Interesting that the middle name Glenn ran from he now feels he must get in your face about. In a nutshell that the man they put forward is not the man they elected. Will Glenn stand up and get in our face about Bill Ayers' social justice agenda emanating from the White House? Will he celebrate ACORN-style voter fraud that Obama said he had no clue about? It's like taking pride in putting something over. I noticed that the NY Times also discovered Obama's middle name today. Sweet. LOL @ only enlightened liberals being able to distinguish wines. LOL @ being ashamed to carry an American passport, something millions are striving both legally and illegally to secure.
Take some time off from visiting Paris and Jakarta guys and come see Americans in flyover country who aren't today pissing and whining that the world has ended and they will be moving to Canada or France. They will just be putting their kids on the bus, going back to work and wondering what the real borderline is on government handouts financed by someone else's tax dollars.

It seems to me that you guys both get the main issue wrong. I grant that you're right about the attacks against Khalidi -- that there's "nothing wrong" with speaking to people who hold views that 90% of the word's population does, that's there's nothing wrong being the Edward Said Profesror of Arab studies at Columbia, that there's nothing wrong believing Israel is an illegitimate state which should be dismantled (or if you don't believe that, there's nothing wrong speaking to some of the many people who do -- I often do, e.g.). The real issue is not whether Obama did something "wrong." It's how his past associations, if at all, should influence our beliefs about Obama's current views on matters where there is little or no evidence about what those current views are (indeed, when Obama is clearly preventing the public from accessing such evidence). I'd agree that speaking with a wide range of people who hold a wide range of views is important and admirable, and there's obviously nothing wrong with it. On the contrary. But surely you can't deny that where someone has had a very close

Quoting DenvilleSteve: the efforts will have to be political because democrats are not willing to join the military and fight for whatever it is they believe in. It is not right for Obama to send red state americans to enforce his half baked foreign policy agenda. ( thinking Joe Biden here, and his proposal to partition Iraq )

What is the point of fighting the Taliban, if at the same time, you will not take action to prevent the Iranians from getting nukes?

Wow. A veritable fountain of crazy ideas. BTW, Biden didn't advocate partition of Iraq, but rather only supporting the initial concept agreed upon by the Iraqis themselves: A weak oil-wealth distributing central government possessing essential government responsibilities as for the military, etc., with largely autonomous Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish states composing the undivided country of Iraq. In short, you're terribly uninformed or misinformed on virtually everything you've posted here so far. You sound a bit like a clone of Ms. Palin, trying to make all these American-versus-UnAmerican distinctions. Guess what?: Your views were roundly repudiated last night. Suggest you broaden your spectrum of news and political-analysis sources. I'm West Coast & so will cede the field to your

Quoting mvantony:
I agree that the attacks against Khalidi were disgraceful. But you're wrong that Obama's long associations with people with certain views aren't rational grounds for strongly suspecting that Obama might sympathize with such views, especially given that his repudiations without exception coincide with the coming to light of the associations, and that Obama does whatever is in his power to keep a tight lid on his (relevant) past.

Hmmm. Psssst: The election's over. How bout you be the new "Obama-monitor," ever on the lookout for terrorist inclinations on the part of our new president. Let us know when you actually find some that relate to real-world facts in the present possibly affecting the course of the future, OK? Perhaps also consider the possibility that you're assigning motives to Obama regarding Khalidi & Wright that might actually have no basis in reality. Have other scenarios even occurred to you? Like, for instance, that Obama might actually have found Khalidi a worthwhile source of valuable information on the inside scoop about what makes Palistinians tick or that he was mostly involved in Wright's church half for some version of spiritual

Quoting Eastwest: [...]

First, I've never used the word 'terrorist' in describing Khalidi, or any of the other anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian individuals Obama associated with. I don't throw that word around carelessly. Second, I don't especially care about Wright. I used him just to illustrate a point. I'm concerned about Obama's possible (past?) sympathies with virulent anti-Zionist positions because of where I live (and the fact that I care about Israel's survival; not all who live here do). From my perspective, the fact that the election is over changes nothing. Third, I'm not "assigning motives" to Obama. To repeat, I'm claiming that, given his past associations, it's rational (for anyone who cares) to be concerned that he might have "worrisome" motives. And that is, I believe, based in reality. But I'll give Obama a chance. For all I know he'll be great for Israel (i.e., from my perspective, not Abunimah's), and, as you suggest, was just trying to better acquaint himself with a certain hard-core Palestinian position, etc. In any event, you're right: we're all just guessing. Given the stakes for my country, however, I'm not comfortable with this high level of uncertainty. But I'm hopeful. I was just responding to what I saw as Josh's and Glenn's (much like Hitchens') unbalanced, oversimplified, and frankly unfair treatment about the worries regarding Khalidi, etc. I think there's a good chance I'll

More on 'Hussein' It looks like Glenn has no clue that if Obama had just said: 'damn right my middle name is Hussein, I'm named after the man who abandoned me when I was four. As painful as it was and potentially damaging as that abandonment could have been, my mother's family nourished and loved me and taught me to cherish education, family values and responsibility. Instead of dissassociating myself from Barack Hussein Sr, I chose to take the higher path and remain true to my christian upbringing which says to honor thy father and thy mother. While Barack Sr chose not to be a father to me, he was an accomplished academian and I also chose to study hard. But I also chose to be a good son, husband and a full-time father'.........I thank my mother and her family for seeing value in my existence and recognizing the reponsibilities inherant in bringing a child into the world, a value and responsibility that I carry on with pride and unfailing belief':
......he would have scored much higher with conservatives by given a much better accounting of his character than his

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Just terrible how so many people living in America voted for the principle of taking the other person's money. Decent, self reliant people have no country they can call their own now.

I share your concern. But you have to concede some of EastWest's points above about Republican profligacy. The Bush adminstration committed the ultimate sin by not having the foresight to avert the financial crisis. Bush has handed an all-encompassing government to Obama without a fight. We assume Obama may follow the path of increased nationalization, but that is in the future. On the day after election day, we should contemplate the truth that Bush does not represent small government.

DS, you are an idiot.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Just terrible how so many people living in America voted for the principle of taking the other person's money.

It's called "taxes." Along with death, it has long been held to be inevitable.

To address Glenn Loury's last question: The talk-radio and extreme Christianist wings of the vast right-wing conspiracy have already begun spurting venom at Obama, and they won't stop. A lot of it will take hold in the more backward and isolated parts of the country. But those forces and regions don't count as much as they did when they were part of Karl Rove's 51% coalition. During this campaign, they repelled more thoughtful, moderate conservatives -- visibly represented by David Brooks, Colin Powell, Jeffrey Hart, et al. More importantly, the "knotheads" (as Rod Dreher calls them) were abandoned by suburbanites and exurbanites who've voted Republican since the 1980s. Obama carried or nearly carried educated, white, middle-class, normally Republican constituencies all over the country -- not just in college towns and high-tech centers, but around cities such as Omaha, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Indianapolis, Tampa and Richmond. A pivotal share of center-right voters repudiated Palin-style "real America" insularity and xenophobia. Those voters are by no means firmly in the Democratic camp, but they are definitely put off by the GOP's culture warriors and outback bigots. The Republican congressional rump and many (most?) of its state party machines are controlled by hard-rightists. It's hard to envision middle managers

Quoting DenvilleSteve: It is not right for Obama to send red state americans to enforce his half baked foreign policy agenda. ( thinking Joe Biden here, and his proposal to partition Iraq )

You're referring to the same Joe Binen whose son is now serving in Iraq, right?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: the efforts will have to be political because democrats are not willing to join the military and fight for whatever it is they believe in...

Hey, BrainStemSteve, over here! You mean Democrats like Pat Tillman, right?

LBJ - we shall overcome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKDVN...eature=related

Quoting Simon Willard: The Bush adminstration committed the ultimate sin by not having the foresight to avert the financial crisis. Bush has handed an all-encompassing government to Obama without a fight. We assume Obama may follow the path of increased nationalization, but that is in the future. On the day after election day, we should contemplate the truth that Bush does not represent small government.

absolutely. And I dont even advocate a system that applies a small government system to all who live in the US. People should be able to choose how much they want to be a part of the collective. Force people to fund their retirement, but allow them to opt out of social security. Allow opting out of the coming national health care system. Let a person purchase health insurance w/o requiring the seller to sell coverage to someone else. Let the individual write off their health costs from their taxable income. One impact of this election is a large chunk of the population will have less concern and sense of responsibility for people living in urban areas of the country.

What a weird post. Republican administrations are not for small government, but rather for wholesale wrecking of those essential functions in which the government engages, this whilst they are the most profligate spenders. They don't really encourage self-reliance, but rather instead engage in wholesale ripping off everyone on behalf the very, very rich as they themselves curry special favors (through lobbyist-bribery) from government available to nobody else, and are legendary for the most incredibly indecent tactics in every arena in which they act. And that's just a refutation of your post-topic.

It's a terrible shame, isn't it, that you have to pay taxes for schools, police, firemen, military, basic essential governance functions, etc. Maybe learn to quit whining and instead sit down with yourself and contemplate, "Just why is it that I feel so special I shouldn't have to pay my fair share"?

Your ideas about Social Security taxes are so stone-age as to not be worthy of reply.

EW

This logic is the exact reason why we will never have a tax policy that doesn't jump from one extreme to the other. The idea that low taxes mean you don't want a fire department

It was a big deal when Jackie Robinson broke the baseball race barrier. And baseball and pro sports changed after that. Brown vs. Board of Ed was a big deal even though it took many more years of pain and struggle to put it into widespread effect. The success of the Montgomery bus boycott and Dr. King's many achievements and the "i have a dream" speech and Bill Cosby breaking barriers in TV series in the 60s and the 80s and Oprah's success and etcetera and many more people and events were very impactful in changing the nation and the world. It is not being naive or overly dreamy-eyed to see how huge President Obama's election is. Especially because he appears to have the talent, intelligence, wisdom, curiosity, judgment, communication skills, etc. to probably be as good a president as we could hope to have at this time.
I think we can appreciate the enormity, beauty and emotion of this event without neglecting a sober view of the challenges ahead. Obama certainly appears to possess that sober realism. And he seems to have the bearing and potential to face up to reality.

I think it's fair to infer that Obama's intention to raise taxes on people earning more than $250,000 a year does seem to have won a seal of approval from a voters over the McCain charges of socialism and all the garbage they threw at Obama's plan.

I find this whole thread extremely enlightening. Anyway. Great job by Joshua and Glenn. I really liked this one.

Well said, Avatar. Both posts were shrill, and based largely on the respective Koolaid.
There is a very interesting article by Alan Reynolds in the Cato Policy Report (Sep/Oct08) which looks carefully at the funky statistics Obama and others rely upon to state that the tax system is "unfair." I won't repeat that here, but suffice it to say, if anything is unfair about our tax system, it is that we overtax the top 20%. And if anything is unfair about income distribution, it is that politicians overstate and misrepresent what Reynolds shows to be a surprisingly fair distribution. The real income gains between 1989 and 2004 were higher among the poorest 1/5 and the second poorest than among the top 10%, "which does not meet any definition of inequality." Blaming the Bush tax cuts for unfair distribution is clearly a hoax. Their statistics do not take transfers into account, even though they are income for the poor, and they attribute actually attribute 2/3 of corporate taxes (yes, taxes paid) to the before-tax income of the top 1% of households. This results in the anomoly that that 1% allegedly received 66.4% of the nation's investment returns in 2004, an

Preach it Glenn, PREACH IT! HUSSEIN, HUSSEIN, HUSSEIN, HUSSEIN!!!!! 100 years from now poets will write about a free America that deposed a tyrant in the cradle of humanity, only to then elect a man of the same name, a very foreign name no longer foreign, a new high priest of freedom, an American inaugurated by the hopes of a world perched on the precipice of liberty-- a world where humanity first glimpse the reality of its true potential.

Simon: Excellent point. A good friend of mine says that the choice in this election was between a sprint toward a social-welfare state and a fast trot. No one who has watched the last six years of the Bush administration can truthfully say that Bush would recognize small or limited government if he saw it. There was little hope that McCain would, either. Republicans who did not respect their conservative principles made their bed, and now they must sleep in it for a while. But if Obama accepts that principle, I will be amazed, shocked, and properly contrite. Our best hope is that he is smart enough to realize we can't afford the sprint right now.

I really appreciated Josh's comments about European misperceptions of American racial issues. The Obama victory should not be viewed as something new and revolutionary. It has symbolic significance, but in terms of fundamental change, it's simply part of a continuing evolution.

Denville: I did not get your last statement. I read it - it is what it is, but what was your point? Are you saying that we should care what happens to urban America (which, by the way, controlled the electoral college vote)? On your other points, it is worth noting that Obama apparently supports the move by the Communist Ghilarducci to do away with 401k's, because they are tax subsidies that "give up 80 billion in tax breaks to the rich". She wants to build another social security program, where we would get $600 from the government if we put 5% of earnings into a government-run and invested plan. 401k assets are viewed by the left as unreported riches that should be available to tax, for even more wealth redistribution. Hopefully, Buffett and Volcker will convince Obama that he had better leave that alone, or none of us will be able to retire!

Great choice for post-Election morning
As I’ve written before these guys give strong and passionate voice to a high level of humane intelligence. Lovely the way Glenn began with his monitory worrying reservation as we’ve come to know it; and I’m thinking, Boy, Glenn is in a lot of pain. That pain as I perceive it was for an anticipated future full of failed promise. But then he said “I want to talk about the future” and grew, the two of them then, giddy (in the best possible way).
And there was the (dare I say) liturgical necessity of honoring the ancestors.
And the call-and-response, Glenn and Josh: Barack Hussein Obama!
These guys are so good.
Another small-but-telling bit; Josh ordinarily struggles mightily to be as clear as possible, a struggle both honorable and fruitful (and necessary in a world of intentional and unintentional distortion); here he just about sang. As I say: Giddy in the best possible way, a spontaneous expression of deep joy (and Hope!). As always:
Thanks Barack Hussein Obama!
President-elect of the United States of America.
Thank Heaven.

I think a hopeful thing about the question Glenn raises at the end is that Obama has a mandate and the Republicans' crummy campaign lost big-time in the political marketplace. And an example of how this can change people and politics with bad ideas and cheap tactics is former Gov. George Wallace who said basically "segregation forever!" when that was what he needed to say to get elected in the south. But as the political marketplace of the south began to change, Wallace eventually changed. And I think that could happen to the Republicans now too. There's some reason to hope it will anyway.

When I heard from Fox News that Obama was the leader of the international Muslim-Socialist-Neonazi-Weatherman-black Baptist extremist-terrorist conspiracy, I said to myself, "THAT'S the guy I want to vote for. Talk about your man for all seasons. Talk about your unifier, not a divider. A guy who can bring leftist radicals, rightist radicals, defunct groups from the sixties, Muslims and Christians together under his leadership - well, let's just say, it makes me proud to be an American."

dnftt, dnftt, dnftt...

Allbets: Very thoughtful comments, but the prediction may be a bit dire. Surely, the right wing (social conservatives, etc.) of the GOP is already working to bring the party back (I got an email this morning from Huckabee on that subject). But there are a lot of very smart conservatives and libertarian-leaning folks out there who have the capacity and desire to take the party back from social-conservatives. The question is, will they, and if not, will they form another party and let this one die a slow but assured death?
In 2005, more than 50% of this country claimed to be center-right, and Democrats couldn't build a majority anywhere that mattered. That changed, in my view, when the Republicans turned their collective backs on Gingrich-style principles of small government, and supported the largest social welfare giveaway in history, while trying to fund a war. I can't believe that the country shifted to center-left as a result, but it clearly voted against the GOP, and it will be interesting to see whether the GOP can recover.

I think this pretty much sums up the sentiment of last night: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/156...3:02&out=23:21

Geez.
Did you miss entirely the leitmotif of the Obama campaign? That we must all take responsibility, we must all compromise our sense of entitlement to purely personal advantage for the sake of the national community? We are being called to do our part, knowing that a healthier neighbor makes for a healthier neighborhood; our national neighborhood. Do you need someone to show you how, help you, to live in your fantasy bubble? But then you wouldn’t have earned the right. It wouldn’t be yours! (insert whining). Is that the inalienable right you feel is being neglected? Has your Reaganite nanny-state not provided you with your right to a wish-fulfilling Big Fat Ego?

Quoting ed fielding: Geez.
Did you miss entirely the leitmotif of the Obama campaign? That we must all take responsibility, we must all compromise our sense of entitlement to purely personal advantage for the sake of the national community?

We are being called to do our part, knowing that a healthier neighbor makes for a healthier neighborhood; our national neighborhood.

Yeah. That's why I considered Obama to be just another socialist demagogue before it was cool. In capitalism, individuals advance their own selfish goals and don't concern themselves with the interest of state, nation, or "national community".

Quoting Doubtful Avenger: A good friend of mine says that the choice in this election was between a sprint toward a social-welfare state and a fast trot.

I like that, fast trot to socialism - funny. For small-government conservatives there was no real choice in this elections. Especially since Republican side has been wedded to propping up megalomaniacal imperial project abroad.

mvantony, You are right it would be nice to hear Mr. Loury talk more about his views of this subject, but perhaps even more fruitful discussion could be had with people who have even more expertise on Islam and Muslims to talk about these type of issues. I understand one can always be "concerned" or "worried" about what is possibly hidden in someone's heart, but regardless of what is in Obama's heart of hearts or whether even he knows or is just a political animal, what do you think he could really do without attracting massive notice and protest that would harm Israel. In fact, won't he be even more likely to bend over backwards to not appear in the least bit tough with Israel about anything? Does making his first big move offering the chief of staff job to an Orthodox Jew who volunteered for civilian service in Israel during the first Gulf War and whose father was in the Irgun make you feel more comfortable that he's not "anti-Israel"? Or perhaps its just part of the continuing plot to hide his

Quoting harkin: More on 'Hussein'

It looks like Glenn has no clue that if Obama had just said:[...]
......he would have scored much higher with conservatives by given a much better accounting of his character than his actual practice of running from a part of his heritage until it was safe to embrace.

Bravery is nowhere in this situation, neither is character.

This is a naive view, I think, and I think the various campaign tactics used against Obama, combined with the statistics showing how many continued to believe through November 4th that he was "a Muslim!!1!" (with all the negative connotations one can imagine attached), show it to be. It would be nice to think that people could be educated out of their prejudices by a frank statement like the one you proposed. Indeed, I wished for something along those lines early on -- remember the attempt by some of us to adopt Hussein as a middle name for ourselves? But given the response evoked in millions of people by that name, it was unrealistic to expect that a few frank statements would have had time to achieve the desired

Quoting ed fielding: [...]

Well said, Ed. All of it.

Brendan, I know this is just assumed by everyone in the discussion but I feel the need to spell it out. The focus on the name of Hussein is bizarrely superficial and its odd to congratulate Americans on overcoming their prejudices or something like that. It's not like Obama is a Muslim or even an Arab, in fact he has made it clear that even his father, from whom he got the name was neither a Muslim nor an Arab. So, there was never even substantive base for people to be prejudiced against Obama based on his name, other than that it became a placeholder for some racebased prejudice, which for some hard to justify but I guess explicable for historical reasons basis, became more acceptable in the view of some people when expressed as a religious bias based in myth and fantasy.

Quoting bjkeefe: This is a naive view, I think,

Is it really. It's sorta obvious that Obama did everything he could to keep a squeaky clean image, and didn't put his neck out on the line even once. Obama was not a brave candidate. Prop 8 in california is all the evidene one needs to see that

Quoting bjkeefe:
We now have four years to get comfortable saying "President Barack Hussein Obama." I hope that this is enough time to defuse the kneejerk response that too many people have to his name, but I would not bet on it.

lol "everyone who doesn't agree with me is the enemy"

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I think this pretty much sums up the sentiment of last night:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/156...3:02&out=23:21

Yeah. When Virginia was called, that was the tipping point for me, too.

Democrat friendly economists Robert Reich and Lester Thurow have pointed out that in this post industrial economy the bottom 70% of the population is getting further and further behind the economic curve. This predicament has been getting worse over the past 30 years regardless of who the resides in the White House and what party controls the Congress. In Los Angeles where I live 24% is considered to be middle class. I think it's time that our newly elected President Obama and his party's Congressional majority do something to address this problem. Sure, tax cuts, minimum wage legislastion help to a degree but appear to be at best inadequate solutions to a major problem. I hope this is an issue that comes under the umbrella of "change." If not, then does it really matter who holds elective office? John

When Pennsylvania was called I knew the election was over. John

Quoting DenvilleSteve: ... democrats are not willing to join the military and fight for whatever it is they believe in. It is not right for Obama to send red state americans ...

Here we go again.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Brendan,

I know this is just assumed by everyone in the discussion but I feel the need to spell it out. The focus on the name of Hussein is bizarrely superficial and its odd to congratulate Americans on overcoming their prejudices or something like that. It's not like Obama is a Muslim or even an Arab, in fact he has made it clear that even his father, from whom he got the name was neither a Muslim nor an Arab. So, there was never even substantive base for people to be prejudiced against Obama based on his name, other than that it became a placeholder for some racebased prejudice, which for some hard to justify but I guess explicable for historical reasons basis, became more acceptable in the view of some people when expressed as a religious bias based in myth and fantasy.

Agree that it's superficial. Aren't pretty much all prejudices? Nonetheless, overcoming prejudice is not easy. So, to people who overcame their instinctive doubts about Obama because of his middle name and found it within themselves to evaluate him using other criteria, and to those who will down

Quoting avatar299: Obama was not a brave candidate. Prop 8 in california is all the evidene one needs to see that

Yep. I could have stood a firmer stance from him on this, to be sure. But who knows? Maybe he really does believe marriage should only take place between one man and one woman. If so, then mark it down as an area where I disagree with him, rather than one where I disapprove of his political calculations.

lol "everyone who doesn't agree with me is the enemy"

If that's all you heard me saying in the paragraph to which this is your response, then I'm sorry you have such a simplistic view of the world.

Quoting bjkeefe: If that's all you heard me saying in the paragraph to which this is your response, then I'm sorry you have such a simplistic view of the world.

That is all you said. The "response" to his name is largely overblown, and it just democrats making themselves the victim of the evil, ignorant republicans. Ooooh The vast, vast majority of this country heard his name, made a joke and moved on. You keep on crusading against the injustice of making fun of someone's name though lol

Shit, even his fellow Democrats played along with the secret-Muslim meme..."as far as we know" ring any bells?

Quoting bjkeefe: Agree that it's superficial. Aren't pretty much all prejudices?

Nonetheless, overcoming prejudice is not easy. So, to people who overcame their instinctive doubts about Obama because of his middle name and found it within themselves to evaluate him using other criteria, and to those who will down the road, I think some congratulations are in order.

I think Abu's point is that Americans ultimately voted for Obama because they have been persuaded that Barack's last name doesn't say anything substantive about his religious or national identity. They trusted him that he is not a Muslim. The voters recognized superficiality of one's middle name and proved that they are not as stupid as sometimes thought of, but they did not forfeit their right to vote against a true Muslim candidate, (just) because she is a Muslim, in some future elections.

Quoting Doubtful Avenger: Denville: I did not get your last statement. I read it - it is what it is, but what was your point? Are you saying that we should care what happens to urban America (which, by the way, controlled the electoral college vote)?

I am not sure at all how this will work out. What with republican voters not having a representative in the house from all of New England, it does not matter what they think or want from the government. And here in NJ, there are plenty of suburbanites voting for democrats. Why should suburban and exurban residents ( the republicans at least ), who have no representation in the national government because of urban voters, care for the well being of those same urban residents? -Steve

The local call-in morning radio program I listened to today, on NPR no less, had multiple callers distressed about how we "elected the anti-christ", how our nation had "turned away from god by electing a muslim" and few other choice bits of fearful ignorance induced by the Republicans in their slimy campaign. The idea that Obama could have addressed these peoples fears head-on is ludicrous. They are impervious to facts at this point, cocooned in ditto-head world. I really hope these people will slowly come to their senses over the coming 4 years, but I am doubtful.

Quoting avatar299: The vast, vast majority of this country heard his name, made a joke and moved on.

I disagree. For example.

You keep on crusading against the injustice of making fun of someone's name though lol

Wrong again.

Quoting JoeK: I think Abu's point is that Americans ultimately voted for Obama because they have been persuaded that Barack's last name doesn't say anything substantive about his religious or national identity. They trusted him that he is not a Muslim. The voters recognized superficiality of one's middle name and proved that they are not as stupid as sometimes thought of, but they did not forfeit their right to vote against a true Muslim candidate, (just) because she is a Muslim, in some future elections.

Sadly, I agree.

Quoting ed fielding: But then he said “I want to talk about the future” and grew, the two of them then, giddy (in the best possible way).

Apologies for harshing on everyone's buzz, but in moving from discussing the past to discussing the future, we ought to keep our eyes on the present, too, as an editorial in yesterday's NYT spells out:

So Little Time, So Much Damage

While Americans eagerly vote for the next president, here’s a sobering reminder: As of Tuesday, George W. Bush still has 77 days left in the White House — and he’s not wasting a minute.

President Bush’s aides have been scrambling to change rules and regulations on the environment, civil liberties and abortion rights, among others — few for the good. Most presidents put on a last-minute policy stamp, but in Mr. Bush’s case it is more like a wrecking ball. We fear it could take months, or years, for the next president to identify and then undo all of the damage.

Here is a look — by no means comprehensive — at some of Mr. Bush’s recent parting gifts and those we fear are yet to come.

The rest.

Quoting mvantony: First, I've never used the word 'terrorist' in describing Khalidi....

Second, I don't especially care about Wright. I used him just to illustrate a point. I'm concerned about Obama's possible (past?) sympathies with virulent anti-Zionist positions because of where I live....

Third, I'm not "assigning motives" to Obama....

But I'll give Obama a chance. For all I know he'll be great for Israel....

In any event, you're right: we're all just guessing. Given the stakes for my country, however, I'm not comfortable with this high level of uncertainty....

OK. Fair enough. Think I understand your POV better. Sorry if I misread it. EW

Quoting ed fielding: dnftt, dnftt, dnftt...

Had to Google that "dnftt," but now understand. I was merely encouraging what Moyers (in his interview today with Terry Gross on Fresh Air) refers to as "the reptilian right." Thanks. EW

Got it. You are saying why should they care, which makes sense. Sort of a "taxation without representation" argument, which could logically be extended to a much larger segment than the NE. I live in NOLA, and don't believe I am represented by Bill Jefferson, either (or Nagin, or Landrieu). His base of support is a largely racist group that is also heavily dependent on government largesse.

Quoting popcorn_karate: The local call-in morning radio program I listened to today, on NPR no less, had multiple callers distressed about how we "elected the anti-christ", how our nation had "turned away from god by electing a muslim" and few other choice bits of fearful ignorance induced by the Republicans in their slimy campaign.

The idea that Obama could have addressed these peoples fears head-on is ludicrous. They are impervious to facts at this point, cocooned in ditto-head world. I really hope these people will slowly come to their senses over the coming 4 years, but I am doubtful.

if those callers live in new england they have no representation in the congress, so why does it matter what they think? They have no votes, no say in how the country is run.

Quoting bjkeefe: So Little Time, So Much Damage.

Yeah, I looked at that when I was trying to fit Obama's victory in my head last night. Totally depressing. I still feel Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. should be in chains for the rest of their lives for war crimes. Nearly died laughing when I noticed Bush pledged "complete cooperation" in the transition to an Obama administration. Yeah... Right... EW

Agreed - no choice: As I have said in the past, whether Bush was hegemonic or not, and whether if was megalomaniacal (that's hard to type!), it was ill-considered and poorly prosecuted strategically, in reliance upon a false hope that folks who had never experienced democracy would adopt it, embrace it, and actually engage in it successfully. I think we do need to prosecute a "war on terror", although it would take pages to explain what I mean by that, but basically to use focused, limited steps, mainly special ops, to protect/perserve our vital national interests and to keep those crazies at bay - but fighting wars to establish democracies that haven't chosen to do that themselves is, at best, naive.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: if those callers live in new england they have no representation in the congress, so why does it matter what they think? They have no votes, no say in how the country is run.

Dial down your hysteria. They had a vote yesterday. I'm sure you have no problem with the concept of "majority rules" when candidates holding your views get elected.

Quoting Eastwest: Nearly died laughing when I noticed Bush pledged "complete cooperation" in the transition to an Obama administration. Yeah... Right...

Gawd. That man just never stops with his Orwellian doublespeak, does he?

I'd like to see the demographic breakdown on the proposition 8 victory. Where I live many demonstrations took place on it with the pro forces outnumbering the anti ones. I assume the pro ones were from various fundamentalist Christian churches in the area that are numerous and some very large. John

Is it really. It's sorta obvious that Obama did everything he could to keep a squeaky clean image, and didn't put his neck out on the line even once. Obama was not a brave candidate. Prop 8 in california is all the evidene one needs to see that

The Democrats were STRONGLY opposed to Prop. 8. Senator Dianne Feinstein did tons of ads on television, as did the state superintendent of schools. The Republican governor was opposed. The entire political establishment was opposed. The Dems. sent out flyers with Obama's picture on them and a big VOTE NO on 8. Proposition Hate passed because of a campaign in churches throughout the state. EVERYONE I saw demonstrated in favor was affiliated with a fundie church. This was a terrible example of rampant religious homophobia, but it can't be blamed on Obama.

Quoting popcorn_karate: The idea that Obama could have addressed these peoples fears head-on is ludicrous. They are impervious to facts at this point, cocooned in ditto-head world. I really hope these people will slowly come to their senses over the coming 4 years, but I am doubtful.

Yeah, and just looking at the electoral map and its implications, it's hard not to weep in disbelief. Just look at those states where Obama didn't have a chance, most particularly the deep South. In listening to Moyers discuss the deep-south "reptilian right," he noted that, in Mississippi for instance, only one in six whites were able to get themselves to vote for the black man. To me that is just stunning. It's like another completely weird stone-age country suspended in the amber of ignorance seemingly forever. EW

.....whose father was in the Irgun

Speaking of paling around with terrorists.

Quoting Wonderment: This was a terrible example of rampant religious homophobia, but it can't be blamed on Obama.

Well, a couple points on this: 1) If Obama, running on the national stage for the presidency, had come out strongly against Prop. 8, it could well have cost him the election in dicey swing states like Virginia, etc., and could have cost the Dems who knows how many seats in both Senate and House, this by virtue of weakened "coat-tails." The reptilian right would have just had a complete field day and would have gone at him hammer-and-tongs, playing the deep gut strings masterfully of nearly everyone but the truly dedicated civil libertarians. In short, he really had no choice but to play realpolitik on this one. 2) Much of the Left reads this issue a little bit too confidently (probably thinking that everybody else should think just like they do) in assigning it all to religious fundie nuts: Almost any leftie is going to say, "Oh, what the hell, why mess with people's attempts to find happiness" on something so simple and obvious as providing legal protections, hospital visitations, etc. via something like "civil unions" or whatever. But, but, but: Many otherwise liberal folks

One question neither Josh nor Glen tackle (maybe because the magnitude of the win was still unclear) is whether Hillary would have been able to pull off such a big win. I doubt it. In retrospect, the numbers in these slides -- posted almost a year ago -- look incredibly prescient: http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...gH4/commentary For those who were looking in the right places, the signs were there all along that he could pull this off. A great day for the US and for the world, as so many have said. But also what a great strategic and tactical victory for his campaign team.

Quoting Eastwest: Well, a couple points on this:

1) If Obama, running on the national stage for the presidency, had come out strongly against Prop. 8, it could well have cost him the election in dicey swing states like Virginia, etc., and could have cost the Dems who knows how many seats in both Senate and House, this by virtue of weakened "coat-tails." The reptilian right would have just had a complete field day and would have gone at him hammer-and-tongs, playing the deep gut strings masterfully of nearly everyone but the truly dedicated civil libertarians. In short, he really had no choice but to play realpolitik on this one.

2) Much of the Left reads this issue a little bit too confidently (probably thinking that everybody else should think just like they do) in assigning it all to religious fundie nuts: Almost any leftie is going to say, "Oh, what the hell, why mess with people's attempts to find happiness" on something so simple and obvious as providing legal protections, hospital visitations, etc. via something like "civil unions" or whatever.

But, but, but: Many otherwise liberal folks are not the least bit comfortable with what they consider as kind of "goofy": general

Quoting Eastwest:
Kind of a fascinating topic, actually. This is one where the gut regularly manages to over-rule the head.

EW

Speaking of fascinating, here's my experience with "civil unions". My wife and I were planning a big outdoor wedding a year in advance, but I wanted her and her children to benefit from my employer provided insurance. Since "domestic partnership" is legal in my state, we entered into one. The federal Gov. does not recognize domestic partnership, and the insurance premiums were counted as income on my check. I don't make a lot of money, so getting $500 to $600 extra deducted monthly kinda hurt. Since I married a woman, and I am a man, this problem was eventually solved for me, but if I was gay or lesbian... no dice, even in a state that recognizes the civil union.
This is unfair, plain and simple.

I don't oppose gay marriage, but am happy to see people don't let illegitimate elites push them around.
Some of us still believe in democracy. You DO oppose gay marriage. If you didn't you wouldn't call its supporters "illegitimate elites." And your belief is democracy is also suspect. If a majority voted to overturn Brown V. Board of Education and re-segregate our schools, would you be celebrating democracy and denouncing the Supreme Court as elitists. Opposition to gay marriage is bigotry. It's very sad that in 2008 in the supposedly progressive state of California we are still mired in homophobia and fundamentalism.

Obama has promised to fix this.

Quoting JoeK: I don't oppose gay marriage, but am happy to see people don't let illegitimate elites push them around.
Some of us still believe in democracy.

I want to know how passing laws against bullying people counts as "pushing" other people around. What effect does gay marriage have on hetero non-"elites?" Aside from offending bigots?

Quoting JoeK: I don't oppose gay marriage, but am happy to see people don't let illegitimate elites push them around.
Some of us still believe in democracy.

You might have a look at this. Add to Elsa Broekhuizen and Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. the realization that much of the rest of the Yes on 8 funding came from small goups of Mormons, many of whom do not even live in California, and your "illegitimate elites" accusation starts to look an awful lot like a boomerang.

Quoting Wonderment: I don't oppose gay marriage, but am happy to see people don't let illegitimate elites push them around.
Some of us still believe in democracy.

You DO oppose gay marriage. If you didn't you wouldn't call its supporters "illegitimate elites." And your belief is democracy is also suspect.

I was obviously talking about Supreme Court of California, and all those in power who think their moral intuitions are superior to everybody else's moral intuitions.

Quoting Eastwest: I suspect the way this issue will fall out is that something like civil unions will end up being more or less standard in most blue states and "defense-of-marriage" acts will end up being passed almost everywhere, except maybe in very wide-open broad minded states. (But even in those states, there is usually a strong countervailing rural and conservative voting block which are no way going to ever sanction gay marriage.)

That's possible. Another possibility is that as time passes, homophobia will die out on its own. I've seen a fair number of stories about even young evangelical Christians thinking being gay is no big deal and/or thinking it's not an issue that they care to prioritize politically, and of course, most of the rest of the younger set tends to be more tolerant than their elders in this regard, too.

Quoting JoeK: I was obviously talking about Supreme Court of California, and all those in power who think their moral intuitions are superior to everybody else's moral intuitions.

How are those who seek to ban same-sex marriage not saying their moral intuitions are superior? They're so smug in their convictions they feel entitled to restrict others, it seems to me.

Quoting bjkeefe: Gawd. That man just never stops with his Orwellian doublespeak, does he?

In fairness, though, this is far from the worst that I've ever heard from Bush.

Quoting bjkeefe: You might have a look at this.

Add to Elsa Broekhuizen and Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. the realization that much of the rest of the Yes on 8 funding came from small goups of Mormons, many of whom do not even live in California, and your "illegitimate elites" accusation starts to look an awful lot like a boomerang.

Even without following the links, I concede I don't know details of the case and have no idea who stands behind the yes vote.
It is a general principle I am interested in: against legal elites writing laws and deciding what is, for example, "cruel and unusual", against Wall Street experts changing the country's economic system in opposition to people's will, and so on.

Yes, I live in South L.A. and the pro prop. 8 forces seemed to be comprised of mostly teenagers presumably from fundamentalist churches. John

Quoting bkjazfan: I'd like to see the demographic breakdown on the proposition 8 victory. Where I live many demonstrations took place on it with the pro forces outnumbering the anti ones. I assume the pro ones were from various fundamentalist Christian churches in the area that are numerous and some very large.

John

Does this (via) get you started? (NB: the data go on for five pages. Religion on p.2.). (Lots more here, it looks like.) Your gut feeling looks valid. From a quick look, it also appears age was strongly correlated with voting one way or the other (ahem, EW ;^)). Looks like being black was a strong predictor, as well. Sadly.

Quoting JoeK: Even without following the links, I concede I don't know details of the case and have no idea who stands behind the yes vote.
It is a general principle I am interested in: against legal elites writing laws and deciding what is, for example, "cruel and unusual", against Wall Street experts changing the country's economic system in opposition to people's will, and so on.

Happy to hear you acknowledge your awareness of this, specifically. I would hope that maybe looking into it a little bit would help rid you of the general instinct. Bandying about "elites" as a bugaboo doesn't seem very thoughtful. True, it happens that small groups are the major impetus behind various piece of legislation, but it is also so often true that "elites" are not that it's worth developing the attitude that these things have to be examined case by case.

Quoting AemJeff: I want to know how passing laws against bullying people counts as "pushing" other people around. What effect does gay marriage have on hetero non-"elites?" Aside from offending bigots?

once gays can legally marry, they can then legally adopt children. It is very unfair to straight children to be forced to be a of a gay family. esp a family headed by two gay men.

Can't gay people already adopt children?

Quoting bjkeefe: Happy to hear you acknowledge your awareness of this, specifically. I would hope that maybe looking into it a little bit would help rid you of the general instinct. Bandying about "elites" as a bugaboo doesn't seem very thoughtful. True, it happens that small groups are the major impetus behind various piece of legislation, but it is also so often true that "elites" are not that it's worth developing the attitude that these things have to be examined case by case.

Um, Proposition 8 was proposed in reaction to some California Supreme Court's decision, no? Because of the initiative, Californians have counted each other to see what they collectively think about this issue and that's how the law of the land will be written. I say, that's how it should be written. (Please notice I am not arguing against representative democracy and for direct democracy. I am arguing for democracy. Period.)

Quoting DenvilleSteve: once gays can legally marry, they can then legally adopt children. It is very unfair to straight children to be forced to be a of a gay family. esp a family headed by two gay men.

I'm sorry Steve, but that's just plain wrong. Why do you think a child would care? You're projecting what I assume are you own biases onto hypothetical children. If a kid was old enough to even understand the basis of your objection and had an opinion about it, how likely do you think that that opinion wouldn't be considered in the judgment? Beyond that, what a narrow hypothetical! You've invented a class of person and a class of harm - neither of which seems particularly cogent - and used them as the broad basis for a far reaching policy whose positive effect would statistically overwhelm your supposed harm.

Brendan, Thanks for the info on prop 8. I had a feeling that the demographics were in the direction as listed on the sites you directed me to. I got a mailer for Yes on 8 with a bunch of black ministers endorsing it and saying that Obama shared their point of view. However, I was surprised that the majority of whites were against it as was I. It's really a no-brainer. John

Congratulations Obama and Obama followers. I hope he does great things. He will have to do something anyway... as I am pretty sure "present" does not fly in the White House. Liked his speech. It had class. I hope a few of you paid attention to how McCain and Republicans in general handle a loss. Some, I see, could put the example into play immediately.

One of the best concession speeches I can remember was given by Oliver North, of all people. Two other notably magnanimous concession speeches were given by Al Gore, and John Kerry. Added: I ought to have said explicitly - I thought McCain gave a great, gracious speech.

I thought McCain's speech was pretty classy. He sounded like the honorable guy we knew in 2000. I was telling my co-Obama supporters that if McCain stays in the Senate, now he can go back to being a thorn in the side of the GOP (the role he always seemed to enjoy) and if he truly reaches across the aisle and helps his President, McCain could really be a hero of the US government in a non-partisan sense. I would welcome that.

Quoting TwinSwords: Can't gay people already adopt children?

Yes, in many states at least...see this wikipedia entry for the somewhat complicated state by state rundown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_adoption

Barack Hussein Obama! First person of color to be President in American history! Yay! Hopefully Bobby Jindal will be the second, and first Republican one! Yay!

Quoting AemJeff: One of the best concession speeches I can remember was given by Oliver North, of all people. Two other notably magnanimous concession speeches were given by Al Gore, and John Kerry.

Added: I ought to have said explicitly - I thought McCain gave a great, gracious speech.

Thats correct Jeff...of course Gore's came sometime in December and I don't believe he has made a pubilic appearance since without somehow bringing up his "loss". Yep, Mr. Class. Kerry's I cannot honestly remember...which probably makes you the only one. ;o)

How people handle themselves both in victory and defeat says a great deal about them. I voted against Rick Santorum in 06. Then I watched him give a wonderful, gracious speech. Then I read the netroots mocking his children for crying at their father's defeat. Classless. McCain also gave a wonderful concession speech. He'll go back to being a great senator. Make no mistake about it: Obama will be my president the same as yours. I hope he has a very successful presidency. Despite my severe misgivings about the way he won, I will hold to this for the good of the country.

It literally hurts to whip out this cite. But it says it all, doesn't it?

I thought McCain gave a great, gracious speech.

He gave an adequate speech. A great speech would have been "I apologize for my campaign's filthy underhanded McCarthyism. It was wrong and I deeply regret it. We should have stuck to the issues that matter to the American people."

Quoting AemJeff: It literally hurts to whip out this cite. But it says it all, doesn't it?

Now, remember that for when Petraeus or Jindal wipes the floor with Obama in 4 years

Quoting JoeK: Um, Proposition 8 was proposed in reaction to some California Supreme Court's decision, no? Because of the initiative, Californians have counted each other to see what they collectively think about this issue and that's how the law of the land will be written. I say, that's how it should be written.

(Please notice I am not arguing against representative democracy and for direct democracy. I am arguing for democracy. Period.)

You haven't addressed the elite funding question I raised earlier. Absent that huge influx of cash, the popular vote could easily have swung a few points in the other direction.

Well sheesh I could argue that about Obama

Um, Proposition 8 was proposed in reaction to some California Supreme Court's decision, no? Because of the initiative, Californians have counted each other to see what they collectively think about this issue and that's how the law of the land will be written. I say, that's how it should be written.

Then as a matter of principle, you would be opposed to desegregation of the South, right?

Quoting Wonderment: He gave an adequate speech.

A great speech would have been "I apologize for my campaign's filthy underhanded McCarthyism. It was wrong and I deeply regret it. We should have stuck to the issues that matter to the American people."

That was my take, too. The MSM appear to be all too eager to fall in love with St. HonorMan again. "Gracious" is the new "threw under the bus." I thought McCain's delivery was as robotic-sounding as a court stenographer reading back testimony. I am willing to concede that he's not a great public speaker and obviously, that he wouldn't have practiced this one, but it still sounded, at times, an awful lot like he was going through with it only because he was compelled to. It's unrealistic to have expected an apology for his campaign during his concession speech, but I'll have to hear a lot more in this direction before I'm willing to think anything better of him. He could have made a bigger step in the right direction last night when the booing cropped up multiple times. Rather than just gesturing, he could have said something out loud.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm sorry Steve, but that's just plain wrong. Why do you think a child would care? You're projecting what I assume are you own biases onto hypothetical children. If a kid was old enough to even understand the basis of your objection and had an opinion about it, how likely do you think that that opinion wouldn't be considered in the judgment?

the "kid" will eventually be 12, 16, 18, 21 years old. Straight people are not comfortable with observing acts of affection between gay men. Look no further than how infrequently you see gay men kissing in mass entertainment. Adopted teenage children are likely to be just as turned off by their gay male parents. Not fair to them.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Well sheesh I could argue that about Obama

You could, but I wouldn't engage with such a ridiculous argument.

If you're familiar with Brown vs Board of Education, a major thrust of the argument was a clear demonstration that segregation manifestly harmed black school children. That cemented the immediate need to end something that was entirely awful. Do you know of any research that would make a comparable case for gay marriage? Unless you can make a darn good case that people are being significantly harmed, I'm disinclined to support the judicial branch overruling the will of the people.

Quoting bjkeefe: That was my take, too. The MSM appear to be all too eager to fall in love with St. HonorMan again. "Gracious" is the new "threw under the bus."

I thought McCain's delivery was as robotic-sounding as a court stenographer reading back testimony. I am willing to concede that he's not a great public speaker and obviously, that he wouldn't have practiced this one, but it still sounded, at times, an awful lot like he was going through with it only because he was compelled to.

Or maybe he was tired and disappointed and doing the best he could do.

It's unrealistic to have expected an apology for his campaign during his concession speech, but I'll have to hear a lot more in this direction before I'm willing to think anything better of him. He could have made a bigger step in the right direction last night when the booing cropped up multiple times. Rather than just gesturing, he could have said something out loud.

When's Obama going to apologize for that awful Spanish language ad?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Straight people are not comfortable with observing acts of affection between gay men.

I am.

Quoting bjkeefe: I am.

I don't particularly care to see acts of affection by anyone else, regardless of sexual orientation, tbh.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Or maybe he was tired and disappointed and doing the best he could do.

I'll give you that, but I stand by what I said about McCain needing to do a lot more before I'll ever have the slightest shred of respect for him again.

When's Obama going to apologize for that awful Spanish language ad?

I'm only aware of the good Spanish language ads that he's done, so you'll have to ask somebody else.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I don't particularly care to see acts of affection by anyone else, regardless of sexual orientation, tbh.

PDAs can be carried too far by anybody, to be sure. "Get a room" is a thought that can cross my mind no matter who's involved.

If you're familiar with Brown vs Board of Education, a major thrust of the argument was a clear demonstration that segregation manifestly harmed black school children. That cemented the immediate need to end something that was entirely awful.

Do you know of any research that would make a comparable case for gay marriage? Unless you can make a darn good case that people are being significantly harmed, I'm disinclined to support the judicial branch overruling the will of the people.

In other words, you are comfortable with the state enforcing "separate but equal" segregation -- separate drinking fountains, schools, bathrooms, etc? Your only objection is the quality of the education in Brown. You would have no problem with a black using a white-only bathroom, provided an equal one were available for blacks only.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: the "kid" will eventually be 12, 16, 18, 21 years old. Straight people are not comfortable with observing acts of affection between gay men. Look no further than how infrequently you see gay men kissing in mass entertainment. Adopted teenage children are likely to be just as turned off by their gay male parents. Not fair to them.

White people were not comfortable with displays of "miscegenation" not long ago. Cross-racial displays of sexuality in mass media are still notable. Do you really want to make that argument? Media display of gay male sexuality is far more common now, than even ten years ago. Now matter how you slice it, that's not a winning argument.

I'm only aware of the good Spanish language ads that he's done, so you'll have to ask somebody else.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...he-fact-1.html

Quoting Wonderment: In other words, you are comfortable with the state enforcing "separate but equal" segregation -- separate drinking fountains, schools, bathrooms, etc? Your only objection is the quality of the education in Brown. You would have no problem with a black using a white-only bathroom, provided an equal one were available for blacks only.

Education was only one facet of the case--Brown vs Board of Education was the nail in the coffin of segregation, because it brought to light the sociological data on the corrosive effects of segregation. If you have no data to support the argument, just concede it.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...he-fact-1.html

Figured that's the one you had in mind. I liked it.

Well then you're hopeless. If you can endorse that ad then you are a wingnut and have no political ethics. And I'm sorry to say that, because I thought you were fairly sane.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Well then you're hopeless. If you can endorse that ad then you are a wingnut and have no political ethics. And I'm sorry to say that, because I thought you were fairly sane.

Be that as it may. FWIW, I don't agree with Tapper's assessment of the ad, so if that's what you're basing your view on, that's part of the problem.

Education was only one facet of the case--Brown vs Board of Education was the nail in the coffin of segregation, because it brought to light the sociological data on the corrosive effects of segregation.

If you have no data to support the argument, just concede it.

ROFL. The data is massive, i.e. every facet of the law that privileges straight marriage harms, by definition, gay couples. You might argue that "civil unions" can be substituted for "marriage" in all these instances of discrimination, but it's fatuous to argue that the discrimination and the harm isn't there in the first place. Indeed, the California Supreme Court ruled on this basis.

Quoting bjkeefe: Be that as it may.

FWIW, I don't agree with Tapper's assessment of the ad, so if that's what you're basing your view on, that's part of the problem.

Tapper's assessment was correct. The ad was a distortion of Limbaugh's words and a blatant and unforgivable distortion of McCain's record. But you're ok with that. So what does your respect matter? You clearly are not interested in a fair and open political discourse.

Quoting Wonderment: ROFL. The data is massive, i.e. every facet of the law that privileges straight marriage harms, by definition, gay couples.

Do you have some specific studies to mention?

You might argue that "civil unions" can be substituted for "marriage" in all these instances of discrimination, but it's fatuous to argue that the discrimination and the harm isn't there in the first place. Indeed, the California Supreme Court ruled on this basis.

I don't care about civil unions, and so far as I can see, most voters don't care about civil unions. But I think there is a specific socio-anthropological value to maintaining an institution for male-female pairing. There's a reason why even societies that encouraged homosexuality still maintained an institution for male-female pairing.

LA TIMES:

A lot of Obama/Yes-on-8 voters? The Associated Press exit polls show that African Americans and Latinos backed Proposition 8 in good numbers. Details here from AP:

California's black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state's same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court's May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.

More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split. Religious groups led the tightly organized campaign for the measure, and religious voters were decisive in getting it passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative. Married voters and voters with children strongly supported Proposition 8. Unmarried voters were heavily opposed.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Tapper's assessment was correct. The ad was a distortion of Limbaugh's words and a blatant and unforgivable distortion of McCain's record.

But you're ok with that. So what does your respect matter? You clearly are not interested in a fair and open political discourse.

If all you're going to do is whine and assert that your opinion is fact, I think we're done talking about this.

Quoting bjkeefe: If all you're going to do is whine and assert that your opinion is fact, I think we're done talking about this.

I'm stating some objective facts. It is an objective fact that the ad distorted Limbaugh's words and misrepresented McCain's rhetoric and record. It was a blatant attempt at fearmongering. But of course it only matters when Republicans dare do anything that approaches fearmongering.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I'm stating some objective facts. It is an objective fact that the ad distorted Limbaugh's words and misrepresented McCain's rhetoric and record. It was a blatant attempt at fearmongering.

But of course it only matters when Republicans dare do anything that approaches fearmongering.

While you're at it, I'm waiting on you to condemn Obama's ad mocking McCain's war injuries. ("McCain doesn't send email! Like, wtf?")

But I think there is a specific socio-anthropological value to maintaining an institution for male-female pairing. There's a reason why even societies that encouraged homosexuality still maintained an institution for male-female pairing.

Gobbledygook.

Quoting Wonderment: Gobbledygook.

Irony. If you're not willing to intellectually engage, then don't bother posting. You just make yourself look foolish.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: While you're at it, I'm waiting on you to condemn Obama's ad mocking McCain's war injuries.

("McCain doesn't send email! Like, wtf?")

I can only hope you're holding your breath.

Quoting Wonderment: ROFL. The data is massive, i.e. every facet of the law that privileges straight marriage harms, by definition, gay couples.

You might argue that "civil unions" can be substituted for "marriage" in all these instances of discrimination, but it's fatuous to argue that the discrimination and the harm isn't there in the first place. Indeed, the California Supreme Court ruled on this basis.

Perhaps it would make sense to rethink the concept of marriage. In the meantime, same sex or different sex unions should be equal. When society struggles so much with something like this, it really makes me wonder whether the entire concept of the institution of marriage is still valid and what it really means. I don't think that there would be a satisfactory resolution of this issue (same sex marriage) until this institution is revised and demystified. Has there been a discussion of the implications of the term 'matrimony'? Is matrimony the same as marriage? How does that work out? Frankly, I like 'union'. It seems more meaningful.

In the meantime, same sex or different sex unions should be equal.

That's fine, except they're not equal. Straight people are unlikely to revise the definition of marriage, so "the meantime" could last centuries. Not fair.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Just terrible how so many people living in America voted for the principle of taking the other person's money. Decent, self reliant people have no country they can call their own now.

You cant own a home in many parts of the US without real concern the government will bankrupt you with confiscatory real estate taxes. Now the value of your home fluctuates greatly due to gov policies that cause pricing bubbles.

It is difficult for a middle income person to save for retirement because of mandatory social security taxes. If democrats were fair minded they would allow individuals to opt out of their big government, big society programs.

We are all forced to participate, to work for the state now. Thinking people must realize this is a bad thing.

Did you just arrive here from another planet?

Quoting themightypuck: Did you just arrive here from another planet?

Funny. That was precisely my first reaction to this guy, too, like: "Wow! Are there really homo sapiens that think like this?!" Then I figured out he's actually Joe the Plumber's little brother. EW

Quoting Wonderment: That's fine, except they're not equal.

Straight people are unlikely to revise the definition of marriage, so "the meantime" could last centuries. Not fair.

Agreed. Maintaining "marriage" as defined by "one man and one woman only" will mean that civil unions will have the same problems as "separate but equal."

Quoting themightypuck: Did you just arrive here from another planet?

typical democrat reply. self reliant people have legitimate concerns to what has become of the american government. The millions of republican voters in New England have no congressional representative to turn to when they have a grievance with the federal government. One possible outcome of republican citizens not being represented in the capital is secession from the union. ( what with the democrats now ready to ring up trillions more in debt, withdrawing from the US gov makes a lot of financial sense. ) -Steve

Quoting ed fielding: Geez.
Did you miss entirely the leitmotif of the Obama campaign? That we must all take responsibility, we must all compromise our sense of entitlement to purely personal advantage for the sake of the national community?

We are being called to do our part, knowing that a healthier neighbor makes for a healthier neighborhood; our national neighborhood.

we all MUST do these things? What if a person refuses? Will you people just seize their assets? Self employeed people are forced to pay double social security taxes and cant write off their medical expenses. Democrats say the productive must do more for the state. it is not right. regarding healthy neighbors, every year millions more 3rd world citizens arrive in the US needing help. Must the unrepresented republican provide for these folks also?

Please ignore this man..I am sorry that you are so upset Steve but you are literally making no sense with your arguments...maybe you should pause and regain your composure before continuing. In the meantime, I will be waiting for all the Green Party and Libertarians to "secede" because they have no representation in Congress. I actually have deep criticisms of the way our "republic" works but you're not giving such criticisms any credibility with your rantings.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: typical democrat reply. self reliant people have legitimate concerns to what has become of the american government. The millions of republican voters in New England have no congressional representative to turn to when they have a grievance with the federal government.

One possible outcome of republican citizens not being represented in the capital is secession from the union. ( what with the democrats now ready to ring up trillions more in debt, withdrawing from the US gov makes a lot of financial sense. )

-Steve

As opposed to all the teenagers who enjoy watching public displays of affection between their straight parents.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: the "kid" will eventually be 12, 16, 18, 21 years old. Straight people are not comfortable with observing acts of affection between gay men. Look no further than how infrequently you see gay men kissing in mass entertainment. Adopted teenage children are likely to be just as turned off by their gay male parents. Not fair to them.

McCain's concession speech was not in the Churchhillian league by any measure. However, it was his finest moment in the campaign and there wasn't an ounce of sour grapes in it. John

Quoting Wonderment: He gave an adequate speech.

A great speech would have been "I apologize for my campaign's filthy underhanded McCarthyism. It was wrong and I deeply regret it. We should have stuck to the issues that matter to the American people."

Hindsight is 20/20, but McCain's single best moment in the campaign was telling a woman at a town hall meeting not to fear Obama. In his concession speech, he held out his palms to the rowdy elements in the crowd ("Please, please, please"), but this time he wasn't fake-smiling his way through it. For what it's worth, I think he found a perfect tone to strike for future GOP presidential candidates: whip up the crowd, then tell them to sit down and shut up when they get out of line. That kind of mildly expressed authoritarianism goes with Republicanism very well. The TV audience would have loved him for it, and I really think it was much closer to his real personality. The distaste on his face on Nov 4th was obvious -- and humanizing. When he isn't forced to act like he loves these (few) angry supporters, he's much more palatable.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Please ignore this man..I am sorry that you are so upset Steve but you are literally making no sense with your arguments...maybe you should pause and regain your composure before continuing. In the meantime, I will be waiting for all the Green Party and Libertarians to "secede" because they have no representation in Congress. I actually have deep criticisms of the way our "republic" works but you're not giving such criticisms any credibility with your rantings.

greens have democrat representatives who prefer to buy oil from the arabs, persians and exploiters of African lands instead of drilling close to their vacation homes. Libertarians have a now useless alliance with small gov conservatives. You're criticisms of the republic can be addressed thru the democrats who have complete control of state and national government. The federal budget will have a deficit next year of around $600 billion. People with no say in policy will be forced to pay for handouts to underperforming auto workers in Detroit. -Steve

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: You are right it would be nice to hear Mr. Loury talk more about his views of this subject, but perhaps even more fruitful discussion could be had with people who have even more expertise on Islam and Muslims to talk about these type of issues.

Yes, both would be good.

I understand one can always be "concerned" or "worried" about what is possibly hidden in someone's heart, but regardless of what is in Obama's heart of hearts or whether even he knows or is just a political animal, what do you think he could really do without attracting massive notice and protest that would harm Israel. In fact, won't he be even more likely to bend over backwards to not appear in the least bit tough with Israel about anything?

Well, I'm not going to speculate in any detail about what he might try to do. In general, though, he would evaluate all the factors involved, decide what kinds and levels of risks he was willing to take, and when he was willing to take them, and attempt to advance his (hypothetical!) agenda accordingly to the best of his ability. Given

I'm curious how the offer to Rahm Emanuel of the White House Chief of Staff post affects your view of Obama. I find it hard to believe that Emanuel would be content without some sort of policy input, and he'd obviously be pretty influential regarding who actually gets to communicate directly with President Obama. The offer itself seems like a pretty clear signal on a number of levels. Update: Emanuel has accepted.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm curious how the offer to Rahm Emanuel of the White House Chief of Staff post affects your view of Obama. I find it hard to believe that Emanuel would be content without some sort of policy input, and he'd obviously be pretty influential regarding who actually gets to communicate directly with President Obama. The offer itself seems like a pretty clear signal on a number of levels.

it is terrible news for the palestinians living in the gaza ghetto. Many saw the tape of congressman nadler telling the jewish voters that the US should accept Russian domination of Georgia in exchange for it discontinuing nuclear aid to Iran. That is terrible in and of itself. But Putin will want more, like Ukraine and the reversal of the decision to deploy missile defense in Europe, in exchange for Israel getting a free hand to keep the stolen Palestinian lands.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm curious how the offer to Rahm Emanuel of the White House Chief of Staff post affects your view of Obama. I find it hard to believe that Emanuel would be content without some sort of policy input, and he'd obviously be pretty influential regarding who actually gets to communicate directly with President Obama. The offer itself seems like a pretty clear signal on a number of levels.

Yes, I agree. And I said it helps. I did read that the role of the White House Chief of Staff varies from president to president, and also, because of the high demands of the job, those holding it last only around two and a half years on average. One might also imagine why sending such a signal now might be thought wise even if Obama does harbor hopes of eventually seeing a single state in (what was Mandatory) Palestine. But, look, I'm not saying I believe Obama favors a one-state solution. I just don't know what he believes about this issue. Given his past, I want something more explicit than mere signals. But, as I said, I'm willing to give him a chance, and adopt a wait-and-see attitude. I really don't want to

I've literally watched less than a minute of this diavlog - I'm at "work" - but please tell me Glenn was being ironic when he said that it was "coastal elites" who were celebrating Obama's victory. I guess it must be the infamous pointy-headed, cheese-munching, Volvo-driving elites of North Carolina, Indiana, New Hampshire, Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico that are really celebrating. Um, I think I will mention freaking Indiana again, as well. Anyway, I am looking forward to watching the rest of this. I (heart) Josh and Glenn.

Update on Yes on 8 outlawing gay marriage in California for November 6th. Large demonstration in West Hollywood last night against the prop. and there was some violance with law enforcement going on a tactical alert. Today, a demonstartion is scheduled at 2:00PM in front of Mormon Temple in West Los Anglees. LDS supposedly contributed a lot of money for the yes side. African American voted 70% in favor of prop. 8 which is the highest demographic group support I have heard to date. John

Josh spontaneously breaks into preacher mode. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/156...9:45&out=40:00

Quoting DenvilleSteve: we all MUST do these things? What if a person refuses? Will you people just seize their assets? Self employeed people are forced to pay double social security taxes and cant write off their medical expenses. Democrats say the productive must do more for the state. it is not right.

Further proof were it needed that civics is no longer taught properly in our schools.
Steve, it’s called citizenship, and has been the ideal this country has pursued since its founding. Under the Constitution it is indeed right. (Granted the narrow scope of your definition hardly begins to probe its surface, much less its depths.)
Hence the questions about another planet as your point of origin. If you feel you should move somewhere else, that’s up to you. But please, no messing with the Constitution; after Bush’s reign that’s in bad odor here. Or are you suggesting a Second Civil War? In that case let me urge you to move elsewhere as expeditiously, quickly, and soon as possible.

To the extent that your fear seems to be that Barack Obama secretly wishes to destroy the state of Israel, yes your fear is ridiculous, without doubt, and contrary to everything he has said in running for office, and every public position he has ever taken in his entire life. Apparently, on the other side, you have the fact that he maintained relationships with people who had different views. I apologize for belaboring the issue, but the only reason I think it is somewhat important is that "fears" like those you are expressing serve to create an environment where not only can anyone who wants to ever think about being President only hold one acceptable view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but they also have to not associate with anyone who disagrees with that view, or else they will create suspicions and become unacceptable as well. Now, in your favor I guess one could argue that some issues are so important that it is not "ridiculous" to "worry" about them, even if one doesn't have any real evidence. But the record should be clear but just how little evidence there is

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: [...]

I'll just note the interesting fact that those in this forum who have have been putting the greatest effort into ensuring me that my concerns are groundless -- you and, to a lesser extent, Wonderment -- have themselves expressed sympathy or support for a one-state solution.

To the extent that your fear seems to be that Barack Obama secretly wishes to destroy the state of Israel, yes your fear is ridiculous, without doubt, and contrary to everything he has said in running for office, and every public position he has ever taken in his entire life. Apparently, on the other side, you have the fact that he maintained relationships with people who had different views.

Exactly. Zero evidence. Tons of evidence to the contrary. Guilt by association with mainstream scholars.

... I think it is somewhat important is that "fears" like those you are expressing serve to create an environment where not only can anyone who wants to ever think about being President only hold one acceptable view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but they also have to not associate with anyone who disagrees with that view, or else they will create suspicions and become unacceptable as well.

Yes, the idea that a candidate is tainted by associating with someone like Professor Khalidi, an American-born Palestinian scholar in the Edward Said mold, is flabbergastingly outrageous. Only in America!

In fact, it could easily be argued that nothing is moving more

I'll just note the interesting fact that those in this forum who have have been putting the greatest effort into ensuring me that my concerns are groundless -- you and, to a lesser extent, Wonderment -- have themselves expressed sympathy or support for a one-state solution.

I unequivocally support a two-state resolution of the conflict.

I don't support the one state solution advocated by Ali Abunimah, but I am sympathetic to his arguments (i.e. willing to listen to them and think they should be part of the discussion) that such a scenario would be preferable to the status quo and that Israel does not seem likely to accept a viable Palestinian state in the foreseeable future. Of course, there is even less support in Israel for a binational secular democractic state than there is for a viable Palestinian state so suggesting it as a pragmatic option is a bit odd. It is easy to see why a one state solution of the type advocated by Mr. Abunimah would be attractive to someone like himself or like Mr. Khalidi. These are secular people with no vested interest in becoming part of the ruling mafia in a Palestinian state. Such a viewpoint is anathema to either the Fatah mafia or Islamist Hamas, so it's basically an academic argument at this point...but who knows things change over time. 100 years ago very few would have imagined the current reality in the area and

Quoting Wonderment: Exactly. Zero evidence. Tons of evidence to the contrary. Guilt by association with mainstream scholars.

The evidence for suspecting Obama might be sympathetic to a one-state solution -- not for believing he is (notice that the evidential requirements for the former are much weaker than for the latter) is actually much more than nothing. It includes at least the following: (1) Obama's sustained past associations with many individuals sympathetic to the view (at the many pro-Palestinian events he attended over the course of many years)
(2) his past "comfort" in expressing views on Palestinian matters which Abunimah, an advocate of the one-state solution, sympathized with (according to Abunimah)
(3) the fact that Obama apologized to Abunimah for not being able to publicly express his views about Palestine because of political reasons
(4) the fact that an enormous amount of relevant evidence is being kept from the public (e.g., the LA Times tape, Obama's Columbia/Harvard records, including courses taken, writings, etc.)
(5) the fact that Obama has said things on the Israeli-Palestinan conflict that obviously don't reflect his considered beliefs (e.g., in the AIPAC speech). Taken together, these points don't prove anything, but they constitute excellent grounds for suspecting that Obama's views

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: I don't support the one state solution advocated by Ali Abunimah, but I am sympathetic to his arguments (i.e. willing to listen to them and think they should be part of the discussion)

I'm also willing to listen to them, and don't object to them being part of the discussion. Although I won't discuss the two- versus one-state solution now -- because I have neither the time nor the energy -- I've discussed it openly on this forum many times before, including with you, and will be happy to again. So your suggestion that my concerns about what the US president-elect believes create an environment in which people holding different views on Israel/Palestine can't express themselves strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

I've no desire to have such a discussion with you either, I've stated plainly I do not support Mr. Abunimah's proposal, so I'm not sure in what way you thought I was requesting a discussion between us. My point has been that, and perhaps this is not your personal intention, statements such as, there are suspicions/concerns about Obama's views on Israel because of his past associations will lead to a positive disincentive for at least politically ambitious people to involve themselves in such open discussions. Hopefully, the fact that Obama succeeded the majority of Jewish voters that such associations should not be a concern is a positive sign for the future of open discussion. The fact that he had to make clear that his own position was absolute and unequivocal support for Israel and that the fact of even expressing sympathy for Palestinian suffering (in a context in which he put most of the blame on Palestinians) was viewed as a mistake are bad signs for the future. One thing I absolutely was not was disingenuous. You think someone looking at this campaign and rhetoric like

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: I've no desire to have such a discussion with you either, I've stated plainly I do not support Mr. Abunimah's proposal, so I'm not sure in what way you thought I was requesting a discussion between us.

I think you've misunderstood me. Earlier you mentioned that the way I "have painted the one-state solution of people like Mr. Abunimah is odd and would be an interesting discussion on its own (probably not in this thread though)." I was just saying that it's too late here for me to get into such a discussion, in case you were interested in pursuing it in this thread.

statements such as, there are suspicions/concerns about Obama's views on Israel because of his past associations will lead to a positive disincentive for at least politically ambitious people to involve themselves in such open discussions.

It's not just his past associations. Please read the list of five points I gave. It seems to me that people who won't allow public access to evidence of past associations and sympathies for a particular view, while simultaneously presenting themselves as holding an incredible opposing view with no willingness to

Quoting mvantony: It seems to me that people who won't allow public access to evidence of past associations and sympathies for a particular view, while simultaneously presenting themselves as holding an opposing view with no willingness to explain the intellectual transformation they must have undergone (and lots of other things that raise doubts), should expect suspicion on the part of the public if they intend to enter politics.

It seems to me that you're arguing that because some of an individual's past associates hold ideas you don't like, despite other associations representing other views, that person should be regarded as suspect. The problem with the guilt by association game that has been played regarding Obama is that it's awfully selective and doesn't plausibly answer how Obama is distinct from any other politician.

Quoting AemJeff: It seems to me that you're arguing that because some of an individual's past associates hold ideas you don't like, despite other associations representing other views, that person should be regarded as suspect. The problem with the guilt by association game that has been played regarding Obama is that it's awfully selective and doesn't plausibly answer how Obama is distinct from any other politician.

It's not just his associations. Please look here.

Quoting mvantony: It's not just his associations. Please look here.

I can't comment sensibly on much of that. I'm trying to make the narrow point that bringing up those associations tends to undermine an argument, because it seems like such a weak point. Particularly since, at this point, as it feels like it's been beaten to death.

Quoting Doubtful Avenger: Agreed - no choice: As I have said in the past, whether Bush was hegemonic or not, and whether if was megalomaniacal (that's hard to type!), it was ill-considered and poorly prosecuted strategically, in reliance upon a false hope that folks who had never experienced democracy would adopt it, embrace it, and actually engage in it successfully. I think we do need to prosecute a "war on terror", although it would take pages to explain what I mean by that, but basically to use focused, limited steps, mainly special ops, to protect/perserve our vital national interests and to keep those crazies at bay - but fighting wars to establish democracies that haven't chosen to do that themselves is, at best, naive.

It is not that Bush is personally megalomaniac, but his ideas are megalomaniacal. Ideas he shares with many Republicans. Jonah Goldberg whose Liberal Fascism I enjoyed very much, said in the diavlog with Douthat, that USA if it can get away with it, should for moral reasons alone, topple communist regime in China. Even if we assume impossibly good scenario where both nuclear exchange and extremely bloody civil and ethnic war are avoided, to think that Americans would be better in

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...mocratic-party

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...mocratic-party

There can be only one explanation for this strange outburst from Alterman.

Another good piece from Alterman: "What Obamedia?"

As things wind down here I just gotta say: It’s a great irretrievable pity that the thread following such a fine and lovely diavlog got sideswiped, highjacked, and trashed by a few knuckleheaded numbskulls.
They have beautifully prepared, finely seasoned and garnished soul food set before them and all they can do is bark, howl, and whine. Please, kids: Never feed the trolls. They have no idea what good nourishing food is, and only shove crap down our throats.
The proprietors should be able to exercise some sort of censorship with offerings of no redeeming social or cultural value. Again and finally, here’s heaping praise on two of the best: Glenn and Josh!

Quoting AemJeff: I can't comment sensibly on much of that. I'm trying to make the narrow point that bringing up those associations tends to undermine an argument, because it seems like such a weak point. Particularly since, at this point, as it feels like it's been beaten to death.

I don't think it's quite been beaten to death yet, since I believe you're still misunderstanding me. I will try to beat it to death this time, however. And I'll mention in passing that the strength of an argument doesn't vary in accordance with how often the argument is stated. Although I didn't say so explicitly before, I think your point was, on the surface at least, not bad, so long as it's just associations that are at issue: Obama's associations with anti-Zionists are balanced out by his associations with pro-Zionists. But in fact, I think, under such circumstances the right attitude to adopt regarding Obama's beliefs is a suspension of judgment -- which is pretty much what I'm doing. But it's not just associations that are at issue. The other points I listed are at issue too, and that breaks any symmetry that may have otherwise existed. (The other four points I offer are based

Obama's FIRST MOVE as president-elect was to appoint Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. If THAT doesn't speak volumes to you about Obama's views on Israel, I don't know what would. From Ha-Aretz:

William Daroff, the director of the Washington office of the United Jewish Communities (UJC), an umbrella organization representing 155 Jewish Federations and 400 independent Jewish communities across North America, said Thursday ..."Rep. Emanuel is [also] a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools."

Needless to say, I nearly screamed over the "Irgun stock" comment, but hey, I suppose one man's terrorist organization is another's freedom fighter.

Quoting ed fielding: .... It’s a great irretrievable pity that the thread following such a fine and lovely diavlog got sideswiped....

Please, kids: Never feed the trolls. They have no idea what good nourishing food is, and only shove crap down our throats.

The proprietors should be able to exercise some sort of censorship with offerings of no redeeming social or cultural value.

I think I agree. That was really amazing: I came back and found 170 rapidly stacked up posts having almost nothing to do with the DV. (Not to say that there weren't some interesting ideas knocked back and forth here and there.) Apologies to Josh and Glenn. (Partly my fault: Didn't know who was who and so did a bit of troll-feeding of my own. Too bad there isn't a little digital tag floating next to certain names: "Identified Troll. Don't feed." Or maybe: "Off-topic post percentage: 79%") Oh, well. Some of us are slow learners. EW

I enjoyed Jonah's book as well. Having an extensive military background, including the War College and flag rank, I have perhaps a better appreciation than he for the difficulty in such an undertaking. It is not one I would support militarily, and like you, have more than serious doubt we could ever effectively run such a place. We could, however, take much stronger positions in Asia, and in particular quit our passifying of China. We don't need to be belligerent, but we do need to be stalwart.
Unless China blows up its hot economy, it will be our next peer competitor, militarily (which we have planned for for years) and politically. Russia will make noise, but it chose to move away from a free market economy just about the time it might have taken off, so it will always struggle to take proper advantage of its natural resource bonanza.

Riffing on Joshua - I'm thinking of Steve Schwerner, Mickey's brother, who is as far as I know very much alive. And I'm sure he's dancing today, with tears in his eyes.

Clearly he was doing this hypnosis thing to everybody back then:

Wall Street Journal, Katherine Rosman
November 7, 2008, 12:34 pm

On a warm weekday evening in 2003, a group that can fairly be described as representative of the media elite gathered at one if its favored venues: the garden behind the Manhattan apartment of journalists Tina Brown and Harold Evans.

The occasion was the publication of “The Clinton Wars,” by Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton. Editors from the New Yorker and the New York Times were in attendance along with media figures like Steven Brill and Rolling Stone co-founder Jann Wenner. The guests mingled and sipped wine. Even Clinton showed up, instantly becoming the epicenter of attention.

I had not been invited but attended the event as the “plus one” of political columnist Eric Alterman, who wrote about the party in The Guardian on Thursday. At the time, I was a freelance journalist not yet employed by The Wall Street Journal. Eager for an opportunity to find a good story or meet an editor who might give me work, I accepted Alterman’s invitation to join him at an event littered with

LOL... good one!

Quoting bjkeefe:
I thought McCain's delivery was as robotic-sounding as a court stenographer reading back testimony. I am willing to concede that he's not a great public speaker and obviously, that he wouldn't have practiced this one, but it still sounded, at times, an awful lot like he was going through with it only because he was compelled to.

It's unrealistic to have expected an apology for his campaign during his concession speech, but I'll have to hear a lot more in this direction before I'm willing to think anything better of him. He could have made a bigger step in the right direction last night when the booing cropped up multiple times. Rather than just gesturing, he could have said something out loud.

The usual tics, flinches, and grimaces weren't around in McCain's concession speech. No wonder he plays craps and not poker. That is some tell!

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Clearly he was doing this hypnosis thing to everybody back then:

Gad. That's an incredible story. Thanks,
EW