SDS

I don't believe in voting against someone I support because they might die.

If you want to give someone credit for Obama's victory - give it to Rove (leaving Bush aside). He set the organizational bar that Obama had to exceed. Just like in the NFL - it is difficult to keep winning against the same team because the losing team gets to adapt, while the winning team doesn't quite know what to change.

Probably because the left projects far, FAR more racism on the right than actually exists.

Karl Rove made that point last night. I always knew you two thought alike...

Thanks. I can understand the whole thing about retirees. I assume the latter part is dismissed, since they would have the option to marry is needed.

However, some seem to want to link black oppression to homosexual oppression, yet the black community doesn't seem to see it in the same light. That was my point.

I think it falls under "social studies".

What makes you say they don't realize this? Is there a big male-female domestic partnership movement somewhere?

I hope you realize that the proposition passed only because of the OVERWHELMING support of blacks and latinos.

The you will be disappointed in his Chief of Staff, a former member of Clinton's staff. Appointing a hard-line disciplinarian such as him for that particular position doesn't quite fit what people think Obama was going to do.

In response to Coli's quotes: He was making a relative comparison.

I just slipped on the floor and the loving hand of Obama was not there to catch me...

My freshman college roommate transfered to Harvard from U. of Rochester in the spring. This kid was a box of rocks. When I came back from winter break he was packing his stuff (and stealing mine) and said he was transferring to HAHverd. I looked at him and and asked, "Harvard? How the f*** did you get into to Harvard?" He replied, "Oh, I know somebody..."

She wasn't running for president in case you hadn't noticed.

It was reported last night - look for it yourself.

The data doesn't show any of this to be true. The exit polls show Palin was a net plus. What she lost by not bringing in women, she gained by energizing the base and pulling in donations.

It's equally as scary that you voted for someone with no history of doing/being the things he campaigned on. "But it sounded good when he said it..." doesn't count for rational judgment.

You are SO overreaching in your analysis. You actually think the the entire country changed that much in 4 years? With SO much going for Obama - he wins by 5% or so - and now the Republicans are just some marginal party? That's sharp analysis right there.

Actually, I think GHost was speaking about Reagan.

You forgot he won re-election. His 2nd term has been disastrous though.

Exit polling data said that only 24% (?) of Obama's voters were excited about the thought of his Presidency. McCain should have never seen the light of day in the Republican party. So, no - you ain't alone.

Ambiguous rhetoric is effective because it is just that - ambiguous. "Change" can mean anything to anybody. Hell, I want change too! Was he talking to me? I doubt it. He has something like a 97% voting record with his party. Seriously. But he talks about uniting people and suckers lap it up like it is worth enough to buy a cup of coffee at StarBucks. It is freaking words. Words from a politician. Is there anything more worthless in America?

Dude - you are a lemming. I'm not saying you are wrong or right, you're just a lemming. It's rhetoric. A speech. Words that were spoken into the evening air and disappeared just as quickly. It came off as a stump speech. The problem is that Obama has NO history of backing up those words. In fact, he has the one of the most partisan voting records in the Senate - when he actually decided to cast a yea or nay vote. So, in fact, his scant history speaks against everything he said. So, what is in Obama's heart? I don't know. But you sure as heck don't know either.

If the charge about Republicans being "stupid" has merit - this is where it has some traction. As soon as W said he wanted to be prez - someone needed to pull him aside and tell him "no". Instead, they put all their political capital behind this guy. If the party wanted a family insider then Jeb was the guy. Jeb was Micheal. George was Fredo. Even then - after all the anger, after all the money, after the fall of the stock market, after running a terrible campaign - McCain may only lose by 4-7 points in the popular vote. Truly remarkable.

I could write for hours on this particular subject, but I doubt I could capture my thoughts eloquently and sufficiently enough to truly reflect my viewpoint. Given that - I'll just throw out some scattered thoughts. 1. The problem was W should have never have been nominated in 2000. It was widely regarded that if a Bush boy was going to run for office, Jeb Bush was the one that was presidential material. When W disclosed to the family that he wanted to run, Jeb stepped aside out of respect for him. Of course, the way the party nominates its candidates is backasswards. The whole "next in line" philosophy pisses me off. 2. It is impossible to know what Gore would have done during 9/11. Obama's victory will be painted in many ways, but I think once you dive into the numbers - you will see this to be an anger vote. This vote was against W and not for Obama's policy positions. The public could be just as angry with the way Gore handled the situation as the way W handled it. Any rationale analysis of this election cycle, given the war, given the economy, given an absurdly unpopular president - and John McCain was actually winning this race about 6 weeks ago is utterly astounding. If the credit crisis started next week, you may be looking at an entirely different outcome. I think it speaks to the weakness of a victory that on paper is very impressive. This ocean is wide, but an inch deep right now. To answer your question - I'm not sure it was worth it, but it was inevitable. The Republican Party has lost it's way and I look forward to it's re-emergence as a stronger party based upon it's governing principles. The electorate is with them on the issues. The internals will bear this out. America just elected an undefined candidate that ran on Reaganesque rhetoric and a tax cut. Obama out Republicaned the so-called Republican. W ushered in the house cleaning sooner than normal, but that is what happens to all politicians - they get corrupted. It was only 4 years ago when we talked about the permanent Republican majority. The country has not changed that much in 4 years. I look forward to saying goodbye to the republican leadership just as I looked forward to saying goodbye to them back in 1994. The party will get back to basics and continue to win the debates our country engages in.