You can watch the pre-election episode of The Explainer, November 4, 2008 over at YouTube.
Magnificent as Obama’s victory speech (which you can read or watch here and here) was, and much as there was general approbation over John McCain’s concession speech as a “class act,” (and many Filipinos, I noticed, wistfully commented they wish our own politicians could learn how to concede gracefully when they lose) there were other scenes that I touched me more. In particular, and perhaps this is more due to my own personal, deep affection for the place, the scenes of rejoicing in Washington, DC, moved me most.
Take this video, for example:
Or this one:
People cheering, dancing, singing, fireworks, and finally, converging on the White House!
These scenes were repeated throughout the United States, see the videos from East to West, from New York to Brooklyn to Philadelphia to Wisconsin, San Francisco and Seattle, among many more online. And I don’t think anyone’s heard of, much less seen, such spontaneous and large manifestations of happiness over an election in modern times (you really have to watch the videos).
And for one particular group, there was a sudden, tangible reconnection with the past. See In Our Lifetime by Henry Louis Gates, Jr.:
We have all heard stories about those few magical transformative moments in African-American history, extraordinary ritual occasions through which the geographically and socially diverse black community–a nation within a nation, really–molds itself into one united body, determined to achieve one great social purpose and to bear witness to the process by which this grand achievement occurs.
The first time was New Year’s Day in 1863, when tens of thousands of black people huddled together all over the North waiting to see if Abraham Lincoln would sign the Emancipation Proclamation. The second was the night of June 22, 1938, the storied rematch between Joe Louis and Max Schmeling, when black families and friends crowded around radios to listen and cheer as the Brown Bomber knocked out Schmeling in the first round. The third, of course, was Aug. 28, 1963, when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. proclaimed to the world that he had a dream, in the shadow of a brooding Lincoln, peering down on the assembled throng, while those of us who couldn’t be with him in Washington sat around our black-and-white television sets, bound together by King’s melodious voice through our tears and with quickened-flesh.
But we have never seen anything like this. Nothing could have prepared any of us for the eruption (and, yes, that is the word) of spontaneous celebration that manifested itself in black homes, gathering places and the streets of our communities when Sen. Barack Obama was declared President-elect Obama…
How many of our ancestors have given their lives–how many millions of slaves toiled in the fields in endlessly thankless and mindless labor–before this generation could live to see a black person become president? “How long, Lord?” the spiritual goes; “not long!” is the resounding response. What would Frederick Douglass and W.E.B. Du Bois say if they could know what our people had at long last achieved? What would Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman say? What would Dr. King himself say? Would they say that all those lost hours of brutalizing toil and labor leading to spent, half-fulfilled lives, all those humiliations that our ancestors had to suffer through each and every day, all those slights and rebuffs and recriminations, all those rapes and murders, lynchings and assassinations, all those Jim Crow laws and protest marches, those snarling dogs and bone-breaking water hoses, all of those beatings and all of those killings, all of those black collective dreams deferred–that the unbearable pain of all of those tragedies had, in the end, been assuaged at least somewhat through Barack Obama’s election? This certainly doesn’t wipe that bloody slate clean. His victory is not redemption for all of this suffering; rather, it is the symbolic culmination of the black freedom struggle, the grand achievement of a great, collective dream. Would they say that surviving these horrors, hope against hope, was the price we had to pay to become truly free, to live to see–exactly 389 years after the first African slaves landed on these shores–that “great gettin’ up morning” in 2008 when a black man–Barack Hussein Obama–was elected the first African-American president of the United States?
Anne Applebaum says the spontaneous celebrations were a kind of national self-affirmation for the entire citizenry:
Because all Americans, white and black, liberal and conservative, are brought up to believe that their country is different, special, the “greatest nation on earth,” a “city on a hill.” We are all taught that our system is just, our laws are fair, our Constitution is something to be proud of. Lately, though, this self-image has taken a battering. We are fighting two wars, neither with remarkable success. We have just experienced a cataclysmic financial crisis. We are about to enter a recession. We are unloved around the world, and we know it. Electing our first black president won’t by itself solve any of these problems, but–to use the pop-psychological language for which Americans are justly famous–it sure makes us feel good about ourselves. That hysteria you saw on television in Chicago was, yes, partly about the return of the Democrats and partly about the passing of George Bush. As the rain-on-the-parade dispensers of sour grapes are already writing, it was absolutely about ideology, too. But it was also about relief: We really are a land of opportunity!
Speaking of the dispensers of sour grapes. Of course the Republican and conservative sourpusses were already a-curdlin’ even before election day: and insisted that something was fishy in the votin’ (see hummers & cigarettes). Surely such bloggers were the grist for sites like Vote Fraud Squad (much as it declares itself “non-partisan”), and post-election, angry Republicans (back to verging on being a lunatic fringe party, if they aren’t careful, as they were poised to be in 1964) are off to a rip-roarin’ start: ‘Impeach Obama’ groups pop up on Facebook. Though it’s noteworthy that some took a cue from John McCain and have rolled up their partisan banners.
Politics is as much about logistics as it is about inspiration, and Words: Who, What, When gives an interesting glimpse of how finely-tuned, not to mention well-oiled, the Obama machine was, locally . John Dickerson in Slate, summarizes the achievements of the campaign and its strategists:
It was not only Barack Obama who made history–so did his strategists. They designed a plan and executed it relentlessly through a brutal primary and general election. Twice they upended the idea that no plan survives engagement with the enemy. Obama won by driving up his vote in traditional Democratic areas, and he shrunk the margins in conservative areas. They also out-hustled the competition. According to exit polls, 27 percent of voters said they were contacted by the Obama camp. Only 19 percent say they were contacted by the McCain camp.
Exit polls also indicated that race was not a factor. Where voters said race was important, they voted for Obama. Those who said race wasn’t important also voted for him–in relatively the same percentages. In Ohio, Obama won among whites making less than $50,000, a group that was once supposed to be a big problem for him. In Pennsylvania cities like Scranton, Reading, and Allentown, where he was supposed to have the same problem, he won by healthy margins. “I always thought that there was a prejudice factor in the state,” said Sen. Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat. “I hope we’ve now washed that away.”
In the end, the voters favored change over experience 37 percent to 20 percent. People also seemed to vote against their economic self-interest, something liberal critics said only witless Republican voters did. Fully 70 percent said Obama would raise their taxes, while 60 percent said McCain would. They voted for Obama, anyway.
Seeing the writing on the wall, one Republican senator even tried to campaign as a Democrat (see Campaign Diaries).
The speculation (fueled by what must have been calculated leaks from the Obama camp) on the President-elect’s forthcoming cabinet started prior to election day on Politico.com. On the same site, Mike Allen and then Sam Stein over at The Huffington Post has the latest.
Some bloggers have offered up reflections on what the Democratic victory means, either for the world (see The Coffee) or for the Philippines, see The Marocharim Experiment and Patricio Mangubat.
My editors at the Philippine Daily Inquirer asked me to write a commentary addressing the same question. See New era of intervention, which came out in today’s paper. In the short term, the President’s window of political opportunity has narrowed to the changing of the guard in Washington January 20. Mid- to long-term, the Intengan-Gonzales liquidate the enemy plan is going to face even tougher going abroad.
As for the concerns over the incoming administration’s economic policies and how they might affect Filipinos, Jeffrey Sach’s What Obama Needs To Do: It’s time for a new macroeconomics will make for interesting and informative reading.
As for the President, well, things are off to an unpromising start: Obama too busy to take Arroyo’s call. She could’ve just said she’d sent a congratulatory telegram.
For a regional perspective, see Asian Views of America’s Role in Asia 2008 as well as The view from the Pacific (and its environs) and What lies behind Beijing’s reservations about an Obama Presidency.
My own reaction to the Obama victory is in my column for today, Out with the old, in with the new . You may have noticed the discussions that went on in Howie Severino’s entry Obama and Filipino racism earlier this year.
Aside from racism, something else intrigued me about the reasons given by some (not all, of course) Filipinos and Filipino-Americans for going conservative. Faith. And so I quoted from Archbishop Burke talks to Inside the Vatican Magazine on Eve of Election.
The Religious Right might have failed in mobilizing against Obama, but they scored some morale-boosting victories in California, Florida, and Arizona. Here’s an intriguing article: Props to Obama: Did he help push California’s gay-marriage ban over the top? Not least because of how time, it seems, is not on the Religious Right’s side:
But if the anti-gay-marriage side was boosted by a one-time event–the first major-party African-American presidential candidate on the ballot–might supporters of gay marriage win in the future? McCuan says that’s plausible. “In the abstract, there’s a high level of support for equal rights, particularly among the younger generation.” And support is growing fast. In 2000, 61 percent of voters approved of a ban on same-sex marriage; this year, it was down to a bare majority. The “Yes on 8” campaign was particularly well-funded and savvy, blanketing the airwaves with ads suggesting that gay marriage would be taught in schools. If supporters of same-sex marriage wait a few years, and if they can muster as effective a campaign as the one mounted this year by the other side, they could well change the law.
You can take a look at the website of the proponents of the American ban on gay marriage at Protect Marriage.
This brings me back to my views on the Reproductive Health bill, and how the actual merits and demerits of the bill as a piece of legislation are now irrelevant, because it’s a showdown between conservative Christians and secularists. It is a fight the secularists will lose and will only serve not only to delay the inevitable, but to make it so much harder to achieve liberalizing things on many other fronts. In which case it has to be asked whether it was the right fight, in the right place, and at the right time.
My next entries will focus less on the scheduled resumption of the Bolante investigation in the Senate (see the Inquirer editorials Defending Bolante and Saved by technicalities ), and more on the truly big fight to come: on the same day the Senate reconvenes to tackle Bolante, the House of Representatives will kick off the do-or-die effort to finally amend the Constitution. That’s on November 10.
@john marzan:
totally agree. teka, papayag kaya si tita koring sa RH bill? hmmmm……… hyper rin kaya cia tulad ng iba dyan… 😀
“….first ever African-American”
this is so nakakasuya na….Barack is MIXED RACE! MIXED RACE!
😀
@dodong,
why don’t you just let the gays and lesbians be? are you at all affected by their marriage?? gay couples are on the high end of purchasing power and disposable income…they are good for business and good for the economy..
my suggestion to the gays and lesbians is declare themselves to be a religion.
then, no one will question their right to marry the same way that a catholic does not question the marriage of buddhists or muslims, vice versa.
Agree with Nash, Binay or Bayani as our black candidate for 2010.
The debates on Gay marriage in California and in the U.S. mirror the debates we have had before, nothing get resolved, until the matter was brought by several aggrieved parties before the court and challenged the provision of the Family Law that Clearly Stated: (i bet it was the catholic church that proposes this law before or the maybe the anglican):
Marriage is the Union of Man and Woman at the Exclusion of All others:
Not so Said the courts in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario and the Parliament asked the SC opinion if Legislation needed to legalize the marriages that were already solemnized..the SC suggested not really since thousands of same sex couples already did based on the lower courts rulings. But suggested to the Parliaments that Benefits accruing traditional couples should also be extended to same sex couples, retro-active to the effectivity of the Charter. so widowers or widows get pensions lump sums.
mlq3,
Daly City uses recycled water to irrigate the golf courses using a different network of pipes.
i dnt like Binay. i can settle for Bayani Fernando though.
my pick still would be Robredo.
but he’s nowehere near the nation’s consciousness, so wth? im not voting for any of the “frontrunners”
ever.
@nash:
sabagay… ermats nga pala ni Obama is White. hehe. I forgot that! LOL!
nash,
McCain also has black and mixed race relatives.
UPn on, “Before Obama leaves office, “gay marriage†will be a matter for the US Supreme Court to decide. AND when the US Supreme Court decides, the decision will mirror Roe v Wade â€â€- equality before the law will trump expectation of the Roman Catholic religion  and any state-laws banning gay-marriage will get tossed into the “circular file.”
You misunderstood the federal law vs state law. It is the other way around. Same sex union is not recognized at Federal level because of Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 defining marriage as union of man and woman. It was passed 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House. No case has been brought to US Supreme Court to test the 1996 Act. It is the least of all options for the Gay and Lesbians community.
The better option for the Gay and Lesbian community is go state by state as they have done in Massachusetts and Connecticut.
nash on, “why don’t you just let the gays and lesbians be? are you at all affected by their marriage??”
First, I am not against gay and lesbians. I like others supported California Domestic Partnership of 1999 that gives the same rights and privileges as traditional marriage like health care, insurance, pension or survivor benefits, visitation rights, sick or family leave, adoption, property rights, trusts or wills.
Second, the claim of civil rights discrimination is outrageous when gay and lesbians have the same rights and privileges like us.
Third, telling us they are entitled to marriage by right is completely absurd, as one can substitute the natural procreation of children by way of adoption. Anything against their perception is considered bigot.
Fourth, they have taken out the word God from currency, remove the bible from the public domain, diminish the very foundation of this great country (religious freedom) and vanish the marriage definition of man and woman.
The most compelling argument is that progress should not be advanced through somebody’s expense – needless to say my faith.
glad you clarified, dodong. my personal views are closer to yours, in that it is the actual legal rights that matter more than trying to assert and appropriate the sacramental aspect of marriage. but in other respects i am in favor of an aggressive secularism more on the french model.
Jeg on, “America’s direction right now seems to be more Federal control over the individual states’ laws.”
It is also the other way around. The states can create their own statute on same sex marriage but it will not be recognized by federal government under the DOMA of 1996.
Besides, the states enjoy greater latitude under 10th amendment.
“Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
d0d0ng: A decision by the highest court of the land trumps a decision at the state-level. Evidence-number-1: Bush winning over Gore. Evidence-number-2: segregation. Evidence-number-3 : Roe v Wade.
The ACLU does intend to bring same-sex marriage before the US Supreme Court, but it is waiting until it really becomes clear that the issue is within the purview of the US Supreme Court (e.g. a lot more controversy with a lot more couples in a lot more states being affected by the issue). Then, it is my expectation (and I expect it before Obama leaves the White House) that the decision will mirror Roe v Wade. Equality before the law will trump expectation of the Roman Catholic religion. The majority will not be allowed to deny a minority of their rights. And what happens next is what always happens with a US Supreme Court decision. Any state-law found in violation of the US Constitution will get tossed into the “circular fileâ€Â.
and if you think about it clearly, same-sex-marriage does not say that d0d0ng’s son should be forced to marry Abe Margallo’s son. It does not even say that when d0d0ng’s son wants to marry Abe’s son or the son of Bencard’s Jewish neighbor, then d0d0ng’s temple or mosque or independent church must say “yes” when asked to perform the ceremonies. It will say that d0d0ng can NOT put a gun to his son’s head to say “NO”, I don’t give you permission. It will say that the justice-of-the-peace should perform the ceremony and the union should be recognized by state laws.
Remember, no religion ever say, much less practice “…all men created equal”.
What the d0d0ng’s of this world don’t quite get yet is that in a religious hierarchy, the minority (the “keepers” of the book-of-knowledge) trumps the will of the majority (the members)… and that the “keepers” of the book-of-knowledge also want to trump the will of those majority who are not even members. Some had sent crusades, some still burn villages or assault other nations’ embassies to get their point across.
“It is also the other way around. The states can create their own statute on same sex marriage but it will not be recognized by federal government under the DOMA of 1996.”
agree. if we have to look on Immigration and the implication of same sex marriage approve at Federal level, the result will be many gay partners from overseas can become US immigrant by marriage. Same sex marriage at State level is the choice of the majority. I voted to outlaw same sex marriage. A couple don’t need to get married to be happy.
UPn on, “Any state-law found in violation of the US Constitution will get tossed into the “circular fileâ€Â.
That is very far from the current case. The DOMA of 1996 is a federal law, not a state law, has been unchallenged over a decade for equal protection violation at the US Supreme Court.
The true nature of legal battle having mulitiple cases filed at the same time at state level rather than at the federal because of the adverse opinion at US Supreme Court.
Here is the excerpt from Washington Independent.
“Gay rights groups reportedly filed the cases in state rather than federal court in part to avoid an adverse ruling from the US Supreme Court, which would represent a major setback for the gay marriage movement nationwide.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/17276/gay-marriage-advocates-sue-to-block-prop-8-in-california
Upn on, “and if you think about it clearly, same-sex-marriage does not say that d0d0ng’s son should be forced to marry Abe Margallo’s son”.
The state already recognized civil union for same sex loving relationship. It does not need to alter the traditional marriage of man and woman.
UPn on, “What the d0d0ng’s of this world don’t quite get yet is that in a religious hierarchy, the minority (the “keepers†of the book-of-knowledge) trumps the will of the majority.
I can agree with you that minority represented by gay groups trumps the will of the majority of non-gays. In 2000, the majority passed Prop 22. Only to be denied by the creative ruling of the California judges. This time we put it as Constitutional Amendment beyond the reach of partisan judges as Prop 8.
I like that one …. A couple don’t need to get married to be happy…. but does d0d0ng’s son agree?
Another stimulus package in the horizon according to Obama.
UPn on, “Remember, no religion ever say, much less practice “…all men created equalâ€Â.
Again far from the truth. In Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew or Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for you are all one in Christ.”
d0d0ng: those words were enunciated to the converted.
And pay attention to the English words, d00d0ng. I tam talking about religion — how a cohort of men have interpreted what God is supposed to be asking men to believe.
Religion made evident in your MILF friends having put to death more than one Catholic missionaries… or some MILF and a number of Christians in agreement about where in the scheme of things the Jewish people fit.
already, one of my religiously-motivated acquaintances have expressed dissatisfaction that Obama had picked Rahm Emanuel to be chief-of-staff. Complaint : that guy is Jewish!!!!
UPn – I know when people talk of issues, there is a tendency of labeling the person who expresses such strong opinion. Hence, I have been accused from stupid to radical MILF. It rather reflects short end of the labeler.
I praised the choice of Chief of Staff, he is methodical and key asset in aligning house votes for the President elect (in case to stay in the middle against veering far left or right).
Obama does cause a lot of frustrations even at Manolo’s Blog. 🙂
agree…but i’m afraid they might be good only in their locality.
bf is already starting to stir the nation’s consciousness on him by posting a lot of his gwapo pictures of himself and by singing on national t.v.
incidentally, bayani’s wife, the incumbent Marikina mayor, probably has a more impressive curriculum vitae than him.
but then again, she’s another She (anticipating flak from the woman-haters out there)…
on the junking of the Esperat case vs. bolante et al by the ombudsgirl:
fg is not called fg by circumstance. the monicker is actually First Gapang.
so, what can we expect…”nagapang na naman…”
it’s also a part their concession…
seal your lips and we end all your worries…”give and take, ‘ika nga, para everybody happy.”
—–
on the probably last medical bulletin:
Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome is being considered on the joke. my friend-doctor told me that it could be life-threatening in children. in adults, i don’t know…
—–
ang chismis, sobrang lakas ng hilik…este hagok…ni bolante sa 2nd floor ng ospital nabulabog ang lahat…lalo na ang mga tutulog-tulog na security. ayun, tinesting na sa kung ano pang sakit ni bolante ang meron.
—–
they haven’t posted it yet but see st. luke’s website on executive check-up programs here:
http://www.stluke.com.ph/index.php?page=parent&pageID=223&parentID=223
addendum: Program H
…the longest medical check-up to date (see http://hkbigmind.blogspot.com/2008/11/longest-medical-executive-checkup.html#comment-8091047736044065432 ).
st. luke’s strives to exceed customer expectations.
—–
coverup it is…
http://www.verafiles.org/index.php/focus/131-coverup-whitewash-of-bolante-case-seen
I’m in favor of other methods of Family planning short of abortifacients.
But then I’m a non devout Catholic.
“Upn- Palin would have taken Virginia if Obama’s volunteers have not flooded the white county with registered voters and went door to door for Obama’s vote.” dodong
it’s like saying, “it’s Obama’s fault why McCain lost.â€Â
ah ha ha ha…. some sourgrapers are really funny. ayaw pa kasing manahimik na lang muna and allow the self healing process take its place. tangapin na kaya muna na mali o hindi nagkatotoo yung kanyang pre election haka haka like bradley effect, tax plan paranaoia and florida older voters….
ngayon eh ang mga bakla naman ang pagdidiskitahan.
The entrepreneurs will learn how to find loopholes of US tax system under Obama 🙂 The practice of cheating and unethical tax practices will be rampant. Obama must tighten the rules. Can he do this? Of course but the skills will not be coming from him instead He will be blamed 🙂
ayan na naman, another prediction from from the prophet of doom madam leyetenean. pag hindi nangyari yan….
Barack Obama won not solely on the issues, but because a lot of people want to participate in a historical moment i.e. electing the first African-American president. I’m surprised why many Americans ignore a more qualified, capable and experienced presidential candidate in favor of a political greenhorn who has little to offer except the promise of change.
Has US politics began to imitate Philippine politics? Do we vote candidates just because they look good on TV and possess a certain level of charisma and appeal? Do we tend to ignore candidates’ qualifications for political office and look for star power instead? The answer is a resounding YES! And unfortunately, many voters in the USA (not all, though) has started to think that way in their voting preferences.
I have nothing against Obama. Indeed, I like him and I think that he will make a good leader in the future. But not now, when tough economic situations demand a stronger and more capable leader. President-elect Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., in my opinion, fails to meet that standard.
Just my thoughts.
and who is more capable? John Mc Cain? He cannot even come up with a consistent economic plan. He is presenting a different plan almost every other week, kaya nakakalito.
btw you check Obamas economic advisers that he meet last week in the form of a summit, Although warren buffet was not present physically he joined teh summit via phone patch,
“I have nothing against Obama. Indeed, I like him and I think that he will make a good leader in the future. But not now, when tough economic situations demand a stronger and more capable leader. President-elect Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., in my opinion, fails to meet that standard.”
“Just my thoughts.” The blind leading the blind pundit or a doctoral graduate from the Sarah Palin University in Wasila, Alaska
“Ben Bernanke is the closest thing to a central economic planner the United States has ever had. He bestrides our narrow economic world like a colossus. Unelected (he was appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by an overwhelming majority in the Senate) and
unaccountable (unless the Congress decides that it wishes to amend the Federal Reserve Act and take the blame for whatever else goes wrong with the economy), he is responsible only to his conscience — and his
open-market committee of himself, the other six governors of the Federal Reserve Board, and the 12 presidents of the regional Federal Reserve banks.”
“The fate of the economy in the next administration depends far less on the president than on this moral-philosopher-prince to whose judgment we have entrusted a remarkable share of control over our
destiny.”
“How did an ivory-tower academic whose specialty is the details of the Great Depression get to this position? What does he do all day? How did so much power come to rest in a single institution, a single individual? The current system is the product of a century and a half
of evolution in the role of a central bank, on both sides of the Atlantic, through a series of accidents and crises. For a generation, the idea of social democracy — with government ownership, control, and regulation of at least the “commanding heights” of the economy –has been in retreat. But in the middle of this market economy is an
immense island of central planning: the Federal Reserve. In normal times, the Fed — not the market — decides what the short-term interest rate is. The interest rate is perhaps the key price in the economy. It is the price at which we trade wealth in the present for wealth in the future.”
leytenian,
“The entrepreneurs will learn how to find loopholes of US tax system under Obama 🙂 The practice of cheating and unethical tax practices will be rampant. Obama must tighten the rules. Can he do this? Of course but the skills will not be coming from him instead He will be blamed :)”
not really entrepreneurs – entrepreneurial lawyers and CPAs!
then it was consulting on “creative accounting” for financial statements to be submitted to stock exchanges
now it will be “creative tax compliance” 🙂
blaming Obama? wouldn’t that be difficult – isolating Obama’s missteps from Dubya’s massive colossal boo-boos?
@rego, it doesn’t matter if he presents different economic plans. Plans change according to the situation. An economic plan before the financial crisis is a whole lot different from one after that.
Anybody who thinks that Obama is more qualified to be president than McCain should have their brains examined. I’m just joking, but how can you trust the entire global economy to a 2-year senator?
Of course, it’s only natural for a president to assemble the best and brightest minds in the economic landscape. Warren Buffet has said before the election that he will serve the next president whoever he might be.
“I have nothing against Obama. Indeed, I like him and I think that he will make a good leader in the future. But not now, when tough economic situations demand a stronger and more capable leader. President-elect Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., in my opinion, fails to meet that standard.â€Â
“Just my thoughts.†The blind leading the blind pundit or a doctoral graduate from the Sarah Palin University in Wasila, Alaska…
What’s that holier than thou approach, eh?
Can you enlighten me on what the acceptable standards are?
Is it the same standards like California electing an actor replacing the experienced politician, Gov. (Brown, was it?) in the middle of an electricity crisis? Did Arnold solve the problem?
loy,
“…but how can you trust the entire global economy to a 2-year senator?”
i wonder what were the comments on a governor (with zero Washington experience) being entrusted with the global economy way back in 1992?
anthony scalia,
At least Clinton had nearly a decade of executive experience. Ditto with Bush, though it’s only 5 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/weekinreview/09sokolove.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin
loy,
“At least Clinton had nearly a decade of executive experience. Ditto with Bush, though it’s only 5 years.”
its easy to say that now, looking back.
and Arkansas’ economy is nowhere close to global as California and New York.
Dubya shares something with his old man – they are turning over the presidency, with the nation reeling from economic turmoil, to a democrat
Economic turmoil in ’92? Hah, nothing like we see now. Building was practically booming back then in comparison to now.
As far as vote fraud goes, it was present, just not in big enough numbers to make a difference (at least in the presidential numbers) a number of ACORN volunteers have been charged with fraud. As far as Obama not returning PGMA’s call it is probably because he was too busy acknowledging Ahmednuttyjihad’s congratulations.
TonGuE-tWisTeD,
Governor Gray Davis was ousted by Arnold.