Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
This was a phenomenal day, not just for the US but for everyone. When I went to the polls this morning, it felt different. People were out walking on the streets. Kids were playing (no school). Everyone seemed happy and energized - something they have not for the past 8 years. It's like we were waking up again after a long, horrible nightmare. The size of this victory, the fact that a man of color (half black, half white - how fitting!) could be elected President in my lifetime, it's all been very amazing. The supporters of John McCain are clearly a dying breed. They have been replaced by a vibrant, diverse (racially and every other way) electorate that is sick of business as usual at the expense of the common man. I feel that a new day has dawned, and we'll all be the better for it.
During McCain's concession speach every time he mentioned Obama the crowd booed. During Obama's acceptance speech every time he mentioned McCain the crowd cheered. I hope this is just a case of those who could most afford it showing their magnanimity and graciousness rather than a real illustration of the spirit of both parties. If it is the latter than tonight's win may very well be a victory over an immature, petty, and morally and spiritually bankrupt party. Their behaviour tonight was ugly and sad and I'm so glad they lost.
Indeed, as disappointed as I am, I am glad for all that this election represents. Hopefully, Pres. Obama will come toward the middle in the Oval Office, and we can find reasonable solutions to some of our problems.
As far as McCain goes, he did show the proper grace as the loser. Those people at his HQ who booed are the worst kind of Americans, the "my way" crowd I dislike so much.
Awesome result. I hope that the US can get to work building bridges and healing its reputation. I always felt that Bush was mean-spirited and immature and that he never had what it takes to lead a nation like the USA. I'm just glad that he and his nasty team are history now.
I notice that I am both excited and cautious about the election result. I remeber dancing in the Place de la Republique when Mitterand got in in France in '81 - and the disappointment as his rule some years later.
At the same time, the extraordinary symbolism of Mr Obama's win and the presence of women in the election (despite more than a few reservations about both Mrs Clinton and Mrs Palin) makes me sad that neither my ex-suffragette mother nor Martin Luther King, Jr, lived to see this day.
This is the USA that I was brought up to admire.
And what fun coming up when Mrs Palin runs for the Senate and then for Pennsylvania Avenue (now the Rainbow House - no longer simply 'White').
I don't have a clue what you all are talking about. I thought Mr. O'Bama was an Irishman.
The important thing about the American choice this time 'round is that we voted for the more intelligent man. The crowd that votes mostly on the basis of who they'd be most comfortable with at their barbecue DID NOT prevail this time, fortunately.
It is, apparently, un-American to be intellectual, and even if one grows up on food stamps, he's still an elitist if he can go to Harvard Law School and be elected president of their prestigious law journal. SHAME!
Congratulations are in store for Americans everywhere. Kudos for a job well done!
You raise an important point, Nirvy. Obama is one of the few presidents who have "intellectual" credentials. Clinton also did, sort of, as did Wilson and a few others, but for the most part people vote for anti-intellectuals like Bush (either one). Apparently people are afraid of other people smarter than they are. I'm glad to see that trend reversing - hopefully. Not that intellectuals always have all the answers, but it shouldn't really be a factor in why you vote for someone or not.
Of course, I'm also really happy to see a former professor at my alma mater (University of Chicago) elected President. The fact that he could get elected after his association with both Harvard and Chicago is quite revealing in and of itself as both are often viewed (stupidly) as hotbeds of liberalism and radicalism. I would just like to point out that Chicago may indeed have lots of radicals and liberals, but they also produced the likes of Milton Friedman and Edward Levi, former Attorney General. It would be hard to imagine anyone more conservative than those two. I think it wasn't such a big deal in this election because of the great numbers of young people in the electorate, most of whom are much better educated and much more tolerant than people of previous generations. And that, I think, is a very positive development!
I'm glad Obama won too. I'm looking forward the next four years.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited November 2008
Curious how everyone sees him as 'black' when in fact, he's half-white.....
Is there any likelihood of this discrepancy being rectified by Americans at any time....?
I mean, why would the fact that America actually has its first half-cast President be deliberately glossed over? :crazy:
Curious how everyone sees him as 'black' when in fact, he's half-white.....
Is there any likelihood of this discrepancy being rectified by Americans at any time....?
I mean, why would the fact that America actually has its first half-cast President be deliberately glossed over? :crazy:
It's probably because the very term "half-caste" is deemed unskillful. I have heard quite a lot of commentators speaking about the President-elect as 'mixed race' and it that which makes it a moment of value, of bridge-building.
British commentators have been very careful to avoid the question of what a first generation ex-colonial will think of the recent past. His grandmother, in Kenya, will certainly remember the Mau Mau. Jomo Kenyatta and the struggle for independence against genocidal violence from all sides.
In correspondence with my many friends in the US, I have been struck by how often they hark back to their nation's struggle against the British Empire, over 200 years ago [whilst, at the same time, telling me that history has changed in 1917/1945/2001 (take your pick)]. What I think says more to us than his 'colour' is the fact that this will be the first US President without a European-style name.
P.S. I also am fascinated that it was deemed 'not OK' to "play the race card" whilst it remained perfectly OK to play the gender card during the race. So, another message sent by the whole process may be that it is better to be a mixed-race man than any sort of woman when it comes to holding power.
But we are going to be seeing more of the semi-divine Sarah Palin as she prepares her own presidential bid. Oh, aren't we in for fun!
Curious how everyone sees him as 'black' when in fact, he's half-white.....Is there any likelihood of this discrepancy being rectified by Americans at any time....? I mean, why would the fact that America actually has its first half-cast President be deliberately glossed over? :crazy:
Obama won because he ran on a post-racial platform, not a black or white or beige one.
If Obama had even an eighth black blood in him, he would still be called "black". I think it's part of the ingrained racism we all have wired in our brains in this country. I think it is better to say that he isn't white like his 43 predecessors. And I think Magwang is right - this is a post-racial thing. It's no longer the issue it once was. Thank Buddha! As the NY Times said, the Civil War is finally over.
I think even 1/32 in him and he would still be considered black (in the U.S.) so I'm told by a friend who's great great great grandmother was African American.
My great great great great grandmother was full blooded Creek Indian. So if I want to go to college I could go as Native American and get more grants etc... to help me pay for school.
I believe the word is Mulatto sp? for half black half white. My son has a friend who is half white and half black and he calls himself black most of the time but he also calls himself Malatto.
Magwang, love those editorial cartoons, especially the second one. It is true, though. As conservative as I am, I do find some consolation in the fact that the US did get something we truly needed, someone other than a white male president. The highest office in the land is truly fair game for any qualified candidate (no more Bush cracks, he's the lame duck now).
Though I'm thrilled that Obama won and that the tyrranical reign will soon be over, I realize there is a lot of work ahead for the U.S.A. Things will not turn around overnight and I hope Americans are ready to make some sacrifices so that we can get back on track.
I was totally bummed about California and why I haven't said anything about the election until today. I will still continue to work to help my people receive the same rights every adult married American enjoys.
Deb,
Yes it is mulatto. But I thought Obama was a man running for President. I really didn't care that he was black/white/polka dot. I actually believed in a good number of the things he was running on. Though it's too late now, I rather had Hillary. But he is a very good 2nd choice. Actually, I thought if Hillary ran, she might not win. That might have been part of the thought of the Democratic Party as a whole. Maybe in a few more years, we'll be ready for a woman president. But then I have female friends who said they wouldn't vote for a woman for a million dollars. Said they are too moody and flighty. HMMM, and if I said that it would be sexist. LOL!
Every paper in my country has had Obama's victory splashed across the front page since the previous day. But their commonality was of "a first Black President for America" etc.
The main English language paper here talks of how Abraham Lincoln used to think that the Afros of America would have been better off if they had been sent back to Africa, but I was quite disappointed when the first three pages of the sheet was a whole essay about how race was a factor in this election... Blah,blah, blah. Doesn't this dude have more beauty within him than just is skin deep?
But I will admit though, on a chart they pulled off from somewhere, I was much surprised to see that 95% of blacks voted for Obama, and all the other minorities having a majority with him. McCain was more popular with the whites. And well, stereotypes work - the older you went, the more people you found voting Conservative.
Is everyone aware of this? I got such a great laugh at this a few days ago. I think this prank call to Palin took place about a day or two before polling day. One wonders the effect this had on the swing votes.
Though I'm thrilled that Obama won and that the tyrranical reign will soon be over, I realize there is a lot of work ahead for the U.S.A. Things will not turn around overnight and I hope Americans are ready to make some sacrifices so that we can get back on track.
I was totally bummed about California and why I haven't said anything about the election until today. I will still continue to work to help my people receive the same rights every adult married American enjoys.
Oh, I hear you, Jerry. The passing of Prop 8 was the one thing that could dampen my spirits during the election win. I'm so damned mad I could just spit. How dare these people dictate such things? How bloody dare them. It's sick and ridiculous and until these wrongs are made right there will be broad injustice in the U.S.. It's so damned infuriating! The kind of people who voted yes for Prop 8 are the kind of people who will have to be pulled kicking and screaming into the 21st century. This kind of deep injustice makes me feel furious and helpless. When is this particular illness going to be healed? It's taking such a long time.
I hear you, Jer, but I'm not at all surprised by the Prop 8 vote in California. I don't think equal rights for gays will ever come via the popular vote. There's just too much prejudice out there, even from so-called liberals (as the recent election proved). Such changes must, I think, come from the courts who are the only protection minorities have in a democracy where the majority rules (usually). And the courts do seem to be slowly coming around to that view.
pally, there's just a fine line between the judiciary rectifying a social injustice and judicial legislation. In this case, it would be Judges addressing a social injustice, but there have been cases (Roe v. Wade) where the judges were completely out of bounds, with no constitutional basis on which to make their ruling. It may take a few years more, but it might be better to try and leave things in the hands of voters for a while longer, so as not to revive a bad precedent.
I'd suggest you study the history of civil rights in this country. The South would still be segregated, indeed, still slave territory, if it had been left up to the popular vote.
I am praying for Mr. Obama's safety. The Secret Service has its hands full with very real threats to his life from within the USA. And Al Qaeda know how to sow internal class hatred by pitting internal groups against each other.
If he were assassinated, the country would tear itself apart.
True, that's the WORST thing that could happen in this country over the next EIGHT years. However, I'm counting on only one or a few deranged people being capable of this and that they'd make enough slip-ups to be caught very early in the game.
The greater truth, however, is that Mr. Barack Obama represents each and every one of us and that he can only be successful, no matter what things may turn up.
Prayers are definitely in order. Let us pray several times each day for his good health and success.
I don't understand where this fear is coming from about him being assassinated. Didn't this election prove that America is not nearly as racist as people make it out to be?
However, there are still groups such as the Aryan Nation and KKK to consider.
It's not a matter of IF someone will try to assasinate Pres. Elect Obama, it's a matter of WHEN someone will try. And may whatever gods exist have mercy on he who tries if I'm around at the time.
Pally, I agree, there are times when the court needs to get involved. But in the '60s, the high courts went overboard with Judicial activism and legislation. Now, if there are still states with legal gay marriage, the proper thing to do would be to work for legalizing gay marriage in neighbooring states until such time as a legal challenge is more feasible. Having the high courts throw out a decision of the people outright borders on totalitarianism.
Judicial Activism- When the Judiciary steps outside the bounds of interpreting existing laws for some other reason than protecting the rights of the minorities.
Pally, I wouldn't disagree with the California Supremem court ruling in favor of gay marriage. I just feel there is a right way to go about it. Going about it the right way means you have a few hardcore wing nuts disgruntled, not the majority of a states population because they voted on something only to have a few elitists throw it out.
Am i right in understanding that, when President, Mr Obana will have the task of nominating one or more Supreme Court justices? More than anythin else, this could bring about transformations whilst (like some past decisions, be they on slavery or voluntary termination of pegnancy) exciting violent controversy.
Simon, it wouldn't be immediate, but if a Supreme Court Justice retires or dies while in office, Pres. Elect Obama would have to nominate a replacement Justice. Now, here's the other part of it, the Senate has the power to confirm all nominations, and without the "super majority" the Democrats needed, they wouldn't be able to block a filibuster attempt by Senate Republicans.
So, there could be some shifts in the SCOTUS, but those wouldn't be too major as Republicans would block anyone too liberal from getting the seat.
Bushi,
Would you like someone voting whether you should have the same rights as they do, even though you are a grown U.S. citizen? I find it insulting when many people who get married and talk about "the sanctity of marriage" are doing nothing to get divorce laws changed. Gays/lesbians who want to marry aren't against the institution, they want it for themselves. At 43 years old, I am told that I am not capable of entering a legal contract with my partner because someone else doesn't like it. I'm not waiting for a majority vote on this. I see no reason this is an issue except that some one else's religion doesn't agree. My freedom of religion is okay to stomp all over, but there's is much more important. That's why unless it's the same for all, it still is "equal but separate" which isn't equal at all in the case of civil unions. I've told my partner I don't care what it is called as long as I get the same exact rights enjoyed by straight married couples.
I'm not saying this personally to you. I want to thank you for being a soldier and protecting our country. You're doing something honorable and deserve all the thanks in the world for it. I know this might sound harsh and do want you to know that you have my respect and my honest opinion.
One of the founding myths of the USA appears to be that groups of Europeans settled in the "New World" to escape persecution because their ideas were in the minority. If they had believed that a majority vote was the touchstone, they would have stayed and become good Anglicans/Catholics/Hanoverian-supporters.
From there, we have moved to another unproven myth: that whatever is decided by a majority is best. We ignore the vast popular votes that swept 20th century dictators into power and continue to believe that government by majority provides the best government.
After many, many elections since I first voted back in 1964 (for the astonishing victory of the Labour Party), I have begun to wonder if the 'mob' should be allowed to dominate.
The way in which this same 'majority' oppresses groups such as gay, lesbian and differently gendered people, refusing them the rights accorded to others, is swept under the carpet labelled 'democracy' is, in reality, discrimination akin to the racism that we are all supposed to oppose.
I've never understood how allowing one group of people rights always seems to make another group of people think their own rights are being threatened. How does expanding equality diminish it in one sector?
Could anyone tell me why legalising same sex partnerships with identical legal protection of heterosexual couples living together (wills, pensions etc) undermines the validity of the latter? The heterosexuals still have the rights they had before and the same-sex couples are happier. Where is the threat?
Could anyone tell me why legalising same sex partnerships with identical legal protection of heterosexual couples living together (wills, pensions etc) undermines the validity of the latter? The heterosexuals still have the rights they had before and the same-sex couples are happier. Where is the threat?
But it upsets the sensibilities of some people . Remember, some men believe they need to be protected from temptation by forcing women to be covered from head to toe. Perhaps these kind of changes threaten people by forcing them to look inward at their own nature? Are they just scared of what they will find? Just a thought.
Jerry, one of the founding precepts of this nation which I defend is "All men are created equal, and are endowed with certain unalienable rights. And among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You deserve the right to enter into a legal relationship with your significant other. That we'll agree on. What I don't want is for this to become the precedent for an elite few to just overturn every voter decision made. We need to strike the balance between courts fullfilling their duties to justice and the creation of an elitist class that has that much political power.
I'll cite the Brown v. Board case as the prime example. While the case involved an oppressed minority, the political action groups behind the ultimate changes knew that in a democratic republic, you don't go crying foul to the highest courts in the land out of hand. Brown v. Board was nearly two decades in the making, spending time approaching lawmakers and trying to gain the support of the public. When the time came, it was just a matter of finding the right case.
I'm not saying wait two decades, but if things start to swing in New England, then the case changes and it's no longer an elitist class wielding too much political power. Push for change where you have a chance, then push for the courts to decide.
Comments
Congratulations, Barack Obama!
Palzang
During McCain's concession speach every time he mentioned Obama the crowd booed. During Obama's acceptance speech every time he mentioned McCain the crowd cheered. I hope this is just a case of those who could most afford it showing their magnanimity and graciousness rather than a real illustration of the spirit of both parties. If it is the latter than tonight's win may very well be a victory over an immature, petty, and morally and spiritually bankrupt party. Their behaviour tonight was ugly and sad and I'm so glad they lost.
As far as McCain goes, he did show the proper grace as the loser. Those people at his HQ who booed are the worst kind of Americans, the "my way" crowd I dislike so much.
At the same time, the extraordinary symbolism of Mr Obama's win and the presence of women in the election (despite more than a few reservations about both Mrs Clinton and Mrs Palin) makes me sad that neither my ex-suffragette mother nor Martin Luther King, Jr, lived to see this day.
This is the USA that I was brought up to admire.
And what fun coming up when Mrs Palin runs for the Senate and then for Pennsylvania Avenue (now the Rainbow House - no longer simply 'White').
The important thing about the American choice this time 'round is that we voted for the more intelligent man. The crowd that votes mostly on the basis of who they'd be most comfortable with at their barbecue DID NOT prevail this time, fortunately.
It is, apparently, un-American to be intellectual, and even if one grows up on food stamps, he's still an elitist if he can go to Harvard Law School and be elected president of their prestigious law journal. SHAME!
Congratulations are in store for Americans everywhere. Kudos for a job well done!
Of course, I'm also really happy to see a former professor at my alma mater (University of Chicago) elected President. The fact that he could get elected after his association with both Harvard and Chicago is quite revealing in and of itself as both are often viewed (stupidly) as hotbeds of liberalism and radicalism. I would just like to point out that Chicago may indeed have lots of radicals and liberals, but they also produced the likes of Milton Friedman and Edward Levi, former Attorney General. It would be hard to imagine anyone more conservative than those two. I think it wasn't such a big deal in this election because of the great numbers of young people in the electorate, most of whom are much better educated and much more tolerant than people of previous generations. And that, I think, is a very positive development!
Is there any likelihood of this discrepancy being rectified by Americans at any time....?
I mean, why would the fact that America actually has its first half-cast President be deliberately glossed over? :crazy:
It's probably because the very term "half-caste" is deemed unskillful. I have heard quite a lot of commentators speaking about the President-elect as 'mixed race' and it that which makes it a moment of value, of bridge-building.
British commentators have been very careful to avoid the question of what a first generation ex-colonial will think of the recent past. His grandmother, in Kenya, will certainly remember the Mau Mau. Jomo Kenyatta and the struggle for independence against genocidal violence from all sides.
In correspondence with my many friends in the US, I have been struck by how often they hark back to their nation's struggle against the British Empire, over 200 years ago [whilst, at the same time, telling me that history has changed in 1917/1945/2001 (take your pick)]. What I think says more to us than his 'colour' is the fact that this will be the first US President without a European-style name.
But we are going to be seeing more of the semi-divine Sarah Palin as she prepares her own presidential bid. Oh, aren't we in for fun!
Obama won because he ran on a post-racial platform, not a black or white or beige one.
Palzang
My great great great great grandmother was full blooded Creek Indian. So if I want to go to college I could go as Native American and get more grants etc... to help me pay for school.
I believe the word is Mulatto sp? for half black half white. My son has a friend who is half white and half black and he calls himself black most of the time but he also calls himself Malatto.
I was totally bummed about California and why I haven't said anything about the election until today. I will still continue to work to help my people receive the same rights every adult married American enjoys.
Yes it is mulatto. But I thought Obama was a man running for President. I really didn't care that he was black/white/polka dot. I actually believed in a good number of the things he was running on. Though it's too late now, I rather had Hillary. But he is a very good 2nd choice. Actually, I thought if Hillary ran, she might not win. That might have been part of the thought of the Democratic Party as a whole. Maybe in a few more years, we'll be ready for a woman president. But then I have female friends who said they wouldn't vote for a woman for a million dollars. Said they are too moody and flighty. HMMM, and if I said that it would be sexist. LOL!
The main English language paper here talks of how Abraham Lincoln used to think that the Afros of America would have been better off if they had been sent back to Africa, but I was quite disappointed when the first three pages of the sheet was a whole essay about how race was a factor in this election... Blah,blah, blah. Doesn't this dude have more beauty within him than just is skin deep?
But I will admit though, on a chart they pulled off from somewhere, I was much surprised to see that 95% of blacks voted for Obama, and all the other minorities having a majority with him. McCain was more popular with the whites. And well, stereotypes work - the older you went, the more people you found voting Conservative.
Is everyone aware of this? I got such a great laugh at this a few days ago. I think this prank call to Palin took place about a day or two before polling day. One wonders the effect this had on the swing votes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4aHL12vtEM
Palzang
Palzang
If he were assassinated, the country would tear itself apart.
::
Please, please, please, don't kill this one!!
The greater truth, however, is that Mr. Barack Obama represents each and every one of us and that he can only be successful, no matter what things may turn up.
Prayers are definitely in order. Let us pray several times each day for his good health and success.
However, there are still groups such as the Aryan Nation and KKK to consider.
It's not a matter of IF someone will try to assasinate Pres. Elect Obama, it's a matter of WHEN someone will try. And may whatever gods exist have mercy on he who tries if I'm around at the time.
Palzang
Pally, I wouldn't disagree with the California Supremem court ruling in favor of gay marriage. I just feel there is a right way to go about it. Going about it the right way means you have a few hardcore wing nuts disgruntled, not the majority of a states population because they voted on something only to have a few elitists throw it out.
So, there could be some shifts in the SCOTUS, but those wouldn't be too major as Republicans would block anyone too liberal from getting the seat.
Would you like someone voting whether you should have the same rights as they do, even though you are a grown U.S. citizen? I find it insulting when many people who get married and talk about "the sanctity of marriage" are doing nothing to get divorce laws changed. Gays/lesbians who want to marry aren't against the institution, they want it for themselves. At 43 years old, I am told that I am not capable of entering a legal contract with my partner because someone else doesn't like it. I'm not waiting for a majority vote on this. I see no reason this is an issue except that some one else's religion doesn't agree. My freedom of religion is okay to stomp all over, but there's is much more important. That's why unless it's the same for all, it still is "equal but separate" which isn't equal at all in the case of civil unions. I've told my partner I don't care what it is called as long as I get the same exact rights enjoyed by straight married couples.
I'm not saying this personally to you. I want to thank you for being a soldier and protecting our country. You're doing something honorable and deserve all the thanks in the world for it. I know this might sound harsh and do want you to know that you have my respect and my honest opinion.
From there, we have moved to another unproven myth: that whatever is decided by a majority is best. We ignore the vast popular votes that swept 20th century dictators into power and continue to believe that government by majority provides the best government.
After many, many elections since I first voted back in 1964 (for the astonishing victory of the Labour Party), I have begun to wonder if the 'mob' should be allowed to dominate.
The way in which this same 'majority' oppresses groups such as gay, lesbian and differently gendered people, refusing them the rights accorded to others, is swept under the carpet labelled 'democracy' is, in reality, discrimination akin to the racism that we are all supposed to oppose.
Could anyone tell me why legalising same sex partnerships with identical legal protection of heterosexual couples living together (wills, pensions etc) undermines the validity of the latter? The heterosexuals still have the rights they had before and the same-sex couples are happier. Where is the threat?
I'll cite the Brown v. Board case as the prime example. While the case involved an oppressed minority, the political action groups behind the ultimate changes knew that in a democratic republic, you don't go crying foul to the highest courts in the land out of hand. Brown v. Board was nearly two decades in the making, spending time approaching lawmakers and trying to gain the support of the public. When the time came, it was just a matter of finding the right case.
I'm not saying wait two decades, but if things start to swing in New England, then the case changes and it's no longer an elitist class wielding too much political power. Push for change where you have a chance, then push for the courts to decide.
HUH? Push for what?