All polls closed, ethical to call the election now- Obama. By a landslide. He may well pass Eisenhower to have the largest popular vote total of any non-incumbent in American history.
I'm proud of my country, but not surprised. To my misanthropic colleagues, those UU bloggers who keep saying race is *THE* issue "coloring" everything, I give a Nelson Muntz "Ha-ha, told you so". And yes, I know their response- "He would have had 97.78% of the vote if he'd been white!" Well, ppbbbbbbt! I'm near tears.
I'll also confess to fear for my country. Will the President elect have the power- or desire- to rein in Reid and Pelosi? Will we become another European-style democratic-socialist state, with institutional double-digit unemployment, a fractional growth rate, passing the torch of world leadership to China or some other up-and-comer? I don't know.
As I was typing this, Senator McCain gave his concession speech. Another proud moment.
It was for nights like this that God gave us alcohol.
9 comments:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Joel. Cheers.
By a landslide Joel?
Yes in terms of Electoral College votes and control of the Senate and Congress but, in terms of the overall popular vote, I would not call Obama's win a landslide. Looks relatively close as far as I can determine.
I agree with your take on the racism issue though. As I have pointed out elsewhere in the U*U blogosphere Barack Obama would not be where he is today without the support of tens of millions of white American voters. This is a watershed moment in U.S. politics and I am confident that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would agree that in this election Barack Obama was mostly judged by the content of his character, as perceived by the American public, rather than the color of his skin.
Winner Obama: Electoral: 338 Popular: 53,014,991 (51%)
McCain: Electoral: 159
Popular: 48,938,336 (48%)
Source CBS News website at 1:00pm
Robin- this morning's figures show Obama with over 52%. By comparison, Clinton had only 43% of the vote his first term... I'd call winning nine percent more than the last President of your party a landslide. Heck, even Reagan only got 51% his first term.
This is an important moment, but to believe that this is more than a moment and an opportunity is to miss the point. Yes, we have a black president, but that does not mean racism has evaporated.
Ours is not a country where the President sends out ethics police who enforce his will. Racism will still occur, both dejure and defacto. Race still affects things, only this time there is an opportunity to transcend that.
Now that he is elected how will he be recieved and how will he be able to govern?
In my state a Jewish person was made governor, and yet anti-semitism still flourishes in many areas.
In Philadelphia the police conned the first black mayor into believing they were dropping an industrial explosive on the move bunker when it was C-4. The white fire chief then refused to put out the fire, knowing there were children inside, because he did not like the black radicals in the building. There was even evidence that the white police snipers may have chased the kids back in with gunfire.
An executive branch officer can only do so much, less if we demand that his very presence must do what we as a people are too cowardly to do.
I don't think that either I or Joel suggested that racism was no longer a serious problem in the U.S.A. Chuck. We are simply pointing out that the U.S.A. has come a long way since the 1960s to say nothing of the 1860s. Of course there is still plenty of progress to be made in dealing with racism. I doubt however that it will ever be completely eliminated, just reduced. Hopefully very significantly reduced.
As far as the assault on the MOVE *bunker* goes maybe what occurred had more to do with the fact that they were armed radicals rather than the fact they were black radicals. White radicals havenot fared all that much better with U.S. law enforcement. Can you say Waco?
:Robin- this morning's figures show Obama with over 52%. By comparison, Clinton had only 43% of the vote his first term... I'd call winning nine percent more than the last President of your party a landslide.
Then I guess that Senator John McCain *also* had a "landslide" with 48% of the popular vote Joel. Only not quite enough of a "landslide" to win against Barack Obama. Right? I hate to speculate how the election might have turned out if he had chosen anyone other than Governer Sarah Palin as his running mate. . . He might have won even with a Dan Quayle.
Palin probably cost McCain fewer votes than she got him. Out of the people I spoke with over the course of the campaign (a hundred, give or take), I didn't have anyone who said that they would have voted for McCain without Palin. I did have several who voted for McCain because of Palin (some of whom wouldn't have voted otherwise, others who were leaning toward Barr).
Anyone who believes the "Palin cost McCain the election" stuff is an idiot. If Romney had been VP, not only would there have been little inspiration of the conservative base, but also a counter-campaign against Romney would have occured like you wouldn't believe (along the lines of looking at Romney's business-life, drawing comparisons to the "fat cats" who just got bailed out). Obama would have had 60%.
"Palin probably cost McCain fewer votes than she got him."
Tell that to FOX News. . . :-)
Post a Comment