If you're not yet sick of Election 2008 stuff yet (I kind of am), you might like these candid behind-the-scenes photos of Obama and family watching the returns on election night in the hotel room. 82 photos in the Flickr set.
Here's Obama giving the terrorist fist-bump salutation to his daughter after his victory is announced.
I never have the patience to examine photos for fakeness. Thank God others do.
North Korea release a photo of its dear leader, Kim Il Jong, to show the world that rumors of his illness or death are unsubstantiated. The BBC, among others, saw the photo and cried "Photoshop!"
Yeah. It looks like they're right. Which only means that the dude really is ill or dead.
Hmmmm….
And here they are:
1 – At the end of the day
2 – Fairly unique
3 – I personally
4 – At this moment in time
5 – With all due respect
6 – Absolutely
7 – It's a nightmare
8 – Shouldn't of
9 – 24/7
10 – It's not rocket science
At the end of the day, I'm not particularly annoyed by any of these. I personally use them all the time – 24/7.
And with all due respect to Oxford, if one of their researchers chastizes me for using any of those phrases, I personally will kick his ass. Absolutely.
Because at this moment in time, I can think of more annoying phrases. You betcha.
And it ain't fish.
Consider that this was the most polarizing election in modern American history.
Consider that most states saw incredibly — sometimes record — high voter turnout.
Consider that Alaska, for the first time in its history, had one of its own on the presidential ballot.
Consider that Alaska saw a 12.8% hike in the turnout for the August presidential primaries (before Palin was selected as a VP candidate).
Consider that Alaska also had a very high-profile Senate race involving Stevens (a convicted felon) and Begich.
Consider ALL that, and you would THINK that Alaskans would be energized and the state would have had a very high voter turnout.
But it didn't. The turnout on November 4 was down 11% from 2004.
Why? One could argue that it was because Obama's win was a foregone conclusion by the time Alaskans, being in a very west time zone, were able to vote. (McCain conceded to Obama at 7:15 pm Alaskan time, well before polls closed there).
That may have played a factor, but then again — there was still the hot Stevens-Begich election. Why didn't Alaskans turn out anyway, for that?
And on that note, it's even smellier.
While polls are not perfect, they were pretty good on all races this year, usually predicting the outcome with no more than a 4% error.
Rasmussen Reports, for example, accurately predicted every Senate race in the country within the margin of error in their most recent polls — except for Alaska.
In fact, ALL the polls prior to election day had Begich winning by an average of 10.3%. Yet Stevens won by 1.3%. That's a Republican shift of 11.8%.
The same phenomenon happened with the Presidental race. The polls were off by 10.8% (shifting Republican).
And for the Alaska seat for the House, the polls were off by 16.5% (shfiting Republican). The Democrat favored to win by about 4%, lost by about 12%.
It's just very odd that the voter turnout was so low, and two Republican lawmakers who were the subject of FBI corruption probes were re-elected – despite polls saying they would lose.
Did Democrats stay home that day? Possibly. Although, in every other state, Democrats were charged up and voted early. Alaska, too, has early voting. One wonders what happened to those ballots.
I'm not crying conspiracy here. But Alaska is known for its political corruption, and, well…… hmmmmmm.
It seems that everybody is writing their views about where the Republican Party goes from here, now that they are "in the wilderness", without a leader. It's a given that the GOP has lost its way.
From what I read, the theme seems to be this: in order to re-emerge, the Republican Party needs to return to its roots.
But from what I read, there's strong disagreement about what those roots are. I'm seeing the developments of two factions though.
The first is that the Republican Party finds itself "in the wilderness" because it is no longer the party of "small government". This is true especially in the area of fiscal spending. Under Bush, government spending is at an all-time high. Cartoonist Steven Greenberg drew a popular campaign cartoon which explains it all:
The Republican Party also cannot lay claim to being the part of "small government" when it engages in wiretapping of its citizens, etc.
So, many pundits are arguing that the GOP needs to return to its "small government" roots.
The second faction is the "religious right", or more aptly, the "social right". These are people who favor the GOP because of its stance on abortion, affirmative action, gay marriage, guns, etc. You know the type.
This second faction is at odds with the first faction, because its tenets (often, not always) embrace the antithesis of a "small government". A government which tells women what they can and can't do with their bodies? A government which says who can and can't fall in love and get married? A government in our bedrooms?
For two and a half decades, the GOP has been able to keep both factions within its tent. That was no small trick.
But it just didn't work this time. McCain's selection of Sarah Palin was an attempt to rein in the social/religious right. It succeeded, but in doing so, he lost independents and libertarians and moderates and people just SICK of the religious right agenda. The country moved to the left, and most people now see the Democrats as being "better" at handling the economy and foreign affairs.
And I think more and more people are turned off by the emphasis on social issues, like gay marriage. They're turned off by it even if they are opposed to it, because of what it happening to their homes and wallets.
In short, *I* think the GOP needs to purge itself of the social/religious right. It is that branch of the GOP which has alienated the moderates and libertarians, who normally fall into the GOP camp at election time, but failed to this time.
The social/religious right simply isn't that large a constituency anymore. In fact, I don't think they ever were. They appeared to be a large constituency, but only because they carried large megaphones in the form of people like Jerry Falwell and Laura Ingraham.
It's not that the majority of Americans aren't religious and/or don't care about these issues. It's just that the mix of religion and politics is a turnoff. Always has been always will be. And when the pious religious right seeks to impose their views on others through the government, it has a tendency to alienate. And this is why the GOP has fallen into disfavor.
Barry Goldwater, for example, would never have embraced the religious right into his Republican party. He would have seen those people as heretical to the GOP philosophy of a small government which gets out of people's way.
The current attacks on Palin, I believe, are being brought about by the "elite" of the Republican Party. It's step one of the religious right purge. Social conservatives love her, and are already geared up for the Palin 2012 presidential campaign. But GOP insiders will have none of that. They know that you turn more voters OFF than ON with that rhetoric. So they're trying to kick her (and by extension, her social conservative supporters) out of the Big Tent. (FWIW, I think that McCain camp attacks on Palin that she "lost the election" for McCain are silly; after all, he picked her!)
The Palin attacks are part of the larger plan of purging, as expressed here:
National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign (Nev.) argued that Senate Republicans need to “re-establish what the Republican Party is all about … [and] get back to this big tent Republican Party” that is united on fiscal conservatism. Although Ensign was not ready to call for a break from socially conservative ideologies, he said issues such as abortion or gay rights should not be at the core of the party.
“I think we lost our way on our fundamentals” in recent years, Ensign said, adding that “those are the issue that we can disagree on as a party.”
And of course, social conservatives are trying to kick GOP insiders and "Trojan Horses" like Colin Powell (who supported Obama) out of the Big Tent. They've even got a name for this operation in the blogosphere — Operation Leper.
As a progressive, it's fun for me to watch Republicans eat each other. But also a little sad.
I don't know how it resolves itself. Both factions are determined. I suspect it may take years for this to play out. I wouldn't be surprised to see the emergence of a third party from the warring factions. Maybe more, as Tbogg suggests in his "Splitters!" post:
"Divided we stand"…no…wait…um… "united we flail" …no, that's not it. Crap, I think I wrote it down on a Wendy's napkin. Look in the back seat of my car…. Oh, here we go:
Republican Popular People's Front
Front of Republican People Who Wish They Were Popular
Maybe a return of the Know-Nothing Party. Yeah, Palin would be great in that party.
ADDENDUM: But, if history teaches us anything, the Republican Party will be back. Consider this:
"I leave you gentleman now and you will write it. You will interpret it. That's your right. But as I leave you I want you to know — just think how much you're going to be missing. You won't have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference and it will be one in which I have welcomed the opportunity to test wits with you."
— Richard Nixon, November 7, 1962
UPDATE: Interesting to read the suggestions for "rebuilding the Republican Party". Very diverse, and often conflicting. Some I applaud, like:
Break the association with anti-intellectualism
From the time I became politically aware, one of the strongest associations I made was that of the active evangelical community around me and the republican party. Many of these people believe that the universe is a few thousand years old, Noah's flood explains all of geology, there will be a Rapture soon, and Bush was guided by divine will. Idiots, in other words.
The republican party has been in bed with this crowd for my entire life. There is a distinct anti-intellectual bent that projects the message "we're poorly educated, and proud of it – vote for us!" It brings with it small-mindedness, pettyness, and ridicule.
I am very receptive to economic ideas about small government, but I just cannot bring myself to cast a vote for a party with the associations I just described – and I didn't three days ago.
And then you have ideas like this:
Social Conservatism, with strong families, support for life, and a firm committment to traditional values is essential to America's survival. Weak homes – the result of on-demand abortion and the destruction of traditional marriage – breed a generation of Americans that will be more dependent on the government from everything from the food they eat the morals they learn. That, in turn, will consume more and more resources as our economy suffers from the entrance of this generation into the work force. The ultimate end, of course, is a weakened position for America in the world, and our relegation to becoming the France of the 21st century.
Republicans must launch a drive that will not only drive the hypocrites from the party, but return the GOP to its socially conservative roots, and, at the same time, begin a national campaign to remind and convince Americans of the importance of traditional values.
Ideological clashes. I'm not sure they can be resolved….
Not to make outrageous comparisons, but I predict that Obama's governing style will be much like those of America's two most popular presidents: George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
George Washington had an eye toward historical precedent. He knew, for example, that what he did as President would affect future presidencies to come. For example, when it came to title, he rejected high-falootin' salutations like "His Excellency" or "His Majesty", preferring instead the more humble "Mr. President" (which is how we still address our presidents today). Seeing his occupation as a civil servent, Washington initially rejected a presidential salary (he was already wealthy). He accepted it only so that, in the future, it would prevent only wealthy men from seeking that office. And although nothing barred him from serving a third term (which he surely would have done), Washington left office after two terms (the second of which he didn't really want either), much in the style of Cincinnatus.
Washington was the first president, and more importantly, he knew he was the first president. He realized the import of this, and ran his White House in such a way that many of his practices are still in use today.
As the 44th president, Obama has less of an opportunity to establish historical precedents. But like Washington, he possesses the ability to see beyond the immediate issues before him, and consider how his actions will look 20, 50, and 100 years from now. It's what Bush 41 called "the vision thing".
Obama is like Washington in the sense that he is not extremely partisan. Washington, of course, belonged to no political party, because there were no political parties when Washington became president. But there were political factions. Washington, to his credit, surrounded himself with adherents of these factions, encouraged and listened to their debates, and THEN made a decision. That governing style is the polar opposite of what we saw in the Bush 43 White House — an insular bubble of like thinkers, where loyalty to the party line was rewarded, and thoughtful dissent was discouraged.
Lincoln took this a step further. He put some of his most strident political rivals in his cabinet — people like Salmon Chase and William Seward. Lincoln had defeated them for the Republican party nomination, and both of them — quite openly — expressed the view that they would have made a better President. It was an inharmonious cabinet, but in the inharmony, it served Lincoln well.
Lincoln treated these men pleasantly and cordially. More importantly, he listened to them. And if Lincoln rendered a decision along the lines urged by his political rivals on the cabinet, it was because he was persuaded by them.
I suspect that Obama will govern the same way. One can glean this from his days as the president of the Harvard Law Review.
The Harvard Law Review is not your typical school newspaper. It's considered one of the most scholarly legal publications in the world. Just getting elected president of the HLR (the first black president) was enough for Obama to receive a lucrative book deal, which he took (the book was "Dreams of My Father"). Obama presided over a team of 60 hot-headed, ambitious, opinionated Harvard law school students who served as the editors. He worked 50-60 hours a week on the publication.
Back then, the political lines were as sharp as they were now. And naturally, the editors quarrelled along liberal/conservative lines about what articles to include, what positions the HLR should take, etc. Obama would lean back and let these debates play out, listening closely. If things got out of hand, he would deflate the fuming editors, saying things like, "Hey. Just remember — nobody reads this thing anyway".
But ultimately, he would make a decision after hearing all points of view. And it wasn't necessarily the most progressive decision. For example, the Review published a searing attack on affirmative action, written by a former Reagan official, although Obama hnimself privately acknowledge that he was a beneficiary of affimative action. When working with authors — which included judges, scholars, and politicians — Obama didn't try to get them to slant their article to fit HIS point of view. Instead, he would work to try to make sure the article worked from the author's point of view. During his tenure as president of the Review, Obama didn't leave his ideological stamp, and respected — sometimes embraced — opposition views.
This is a remarkable skill, and something rare in presidents (especially of late): the ability to understand viewpoints of the opposition. It is Obama's greatest strength. It is what makes him NOT an idealogue.
So I suspect that, as President of the United States, Obama will do as he promised in his victory speech: he will not only preside over an administration of thinkers, but an administration of thinkers with opposing views. It would not surprise me to see him appoint Republicans to key posts (i.e., keep Gates on as Secretary of Defense). He works in a non-partisan manner, and rejects "identity politics". He'll give the jobs to the best man, and not necessarily the most politically expedient one.
While this may prove to be a disappointment to those who want Obama to be a "progressive Bush", it probably serves the country best. It will, hopefully, unite us, despite our differences.
From 52 to 48: a photo website where Obama supporters ("The 52") express themselves to McCain supporters ("The 48")
AP calls it, after surveying the various counties and determining the number of provisional ballots. Apparently, not enough exist to make a difference.
There's already a movement to impeach Obama
I was scared about Sarah Palin's lack of knowledge about, well, civics. Many were. But now we are slowly learning that the McCain people were totally freaked by her breathtaking ignorance. McCain staffers had told certain Palin stories to Fox News reporter Carl Cameron, but it was "off the record".
Carl Cameron…. reveals that McCain aides were truly "shocked" at the "gaps in knowledge" Sarah Palin displayed once they were stuck with her. He said that, in the most startling shortcoming, she actually didn't "understand that Africa was not just a country, but a continent." This led, among other things, to her asking how, in that case, South Africa could be a separate country. She also could not name all of the countries in North America, he said, not even the NAFTA partners. And she did not know many of the basics of civics and local/state/national duties.
But the "gaps" explain, Cameron said, why tensions erupted as McCain aides were truly alarmed by all of this – yet Palin wanted to speak out freely. So in the closing week or so, they reveal, she took to yelling and screaming at aides over her press clippings, even "tossing papers" around. She was so out of touch she actually refused coaching before the Katie Couric interviews, then yelled at staffers for not preparing her better or warning her off the interviews. "Temper tantrums," etc. Then there were the clothes bills and greeting McCain aides in a bath towel….
MSNBC noted today, "[i]t's hard not to look at the map … and not view the GOP as a regional party right now."
West Wing fans know that, at the show's inception, the character of Josh Lyman was modeled after Rahm Emanuel.
It means nothing that the Dow dropped 300 points today. If one is going to make the argument that it has something to do with the Obama win, then one needs to consider that the Dow went up 300 yesterday, a day when it was clear to everyone that no last minute "surprises" would thwart an Obama win.
The truth is that that Dow has been going up and down by hundreds of points MANY days over the past several weeks (mostly down) for reasons having nothing to do with the election and everything to do with the financial crisis/housing bubble burst/credit crisis.
Nobody reasonably argued that the election of Obama alone was supposed to solve Wall Street's woes. So today's dip in the Dow doesn't refute that never-made argument.
The second most important job in the United States, functionally-speaking, is the President's Chief of Staff. The Chief of Staff sets the agenda (though not the policy), is the gatekeeper of presidential access, and is generally charged with "getting things done".
MSNBC just reported that Rahm Emanuel has accepted that post in the Obama administration.
It's a good choice. Emanuel has the right demeanor.