Hello Deepak and Everyone

For me, I was most moved by the tears of so many of our fellow Americans, especially, all those who took part in the fight for their civil rights in the sixties.....it was a very sweet joy to have witnessed.....and, to, you felt the peace present in that joy.....I am still feeling it...and, so glad, that little ole me, got to play a part and vote in this moment in our Nation's history...I felt it was such a privilege, more so, than any other time in my voting history....

have a great day...ruth

Dear Deepak,

I think one word to describe might be Catharsis as both cause and effect.

In my brief conversation with the President Elect he indicated support for the (R)evolution and would study the material provided to help bring it about.

This revolution is about to go into full swing much to dismay of those few that benefit disproportionally from the current system of things and depend on fiction not truth for the creation of their wealth and the obtainment of ill gotten gains.

It will be a delight to the many that have suffered detriment as a result of the current system of things and I expect strong support from them to usher in the new system of things.

To the individuals of the various professions, industries, and institutions I suggest you embrace the truth and make the changes before it is embraced for you.

To Ruth and Richard,

I have come to know you both rather well during our exchange of messages here at IB. I am so very pleased for you and many others here that such a great positive event has occurred in your life by the election of Barack Obama as your new President.

I just saw an interview with the husband of Ophra Winfrey on our Dutch television. He is in our country at the moment to give lectures on a better management in companies, industries and institutions.

So Richard, not only in your country Barack will bring positive change sponsored by your valued contributions, also through others working as hard as you do in America, we here in Europe can benefit from your ideas if we are open to it.

We here in Holland are usually a very sober kind of people, standing firmly with two feet on the ground, but open to positive change and open towards both the West and the East.

Just like America already is, Europe is becoming a melting pot from which a new evolutionary being will arise and the people in Asia are not far behind.

Lots of success to you in building up your nation, we will follow behind :)

Love, Mieke

Yes, this is a great time in history for America...

"CHANGE"

Hi, Mieke,

Yes, I didn't realize the weight of the moment until I was actually experiencing it and it was lovely suprise....

But as I was listening to Barak Obama give his speech and say a little bit about the President he would like to be, the leader he would like to be, my thinking was that he will do his best, I am sure, to realize his potential during his term or terms of Office. Also, it would be good for this man to be allowed to be "just" a first time President with all the ups and downs, spectrum of wise choices and dumb choice, allowed any other President......yes, the historic election of our first Black President speaks volumes across the globe in terms of hope, possibility, liberty and justice and what that says is that it is alive and well....they are not dead and buried.

We need to remember that Barak Obama is not the second coming of anything....let us also do him a favor and allow him to be "just" another President, and, if, he, in fact, distinquishes himself, his Presidency, then, we( our global community) will reap those benefits too

have a wonderful evening Mieke,....ruth

I look forward when the following labels will no longer be read on IB:

Neocon
Racist
Homophobic
Sexist
Immoral Republicans
Fundamentalist
Islamophobic
Bigot
Right wing

More will come to mind

"now the stain will be washed away"--HUH????
That's a lot of wishful thinking and naivete. The problems and pain in the black community have not gone away and more importantly, will not go away as a result of Obama being elected. It actually upsets me to hear this kind of denial of reality. ALL OF THESE PAINFUL PROBLEMS STILL EXIST IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY. The poverty, the fathers fathering children whom they abandon, the black on black violence. How has Obama being elected changed any of that?
I am so sick of intentblog. I appreciate deeply that it is a place to freely voice opinion, and that is valuable especially in these times when I fear that free speech will be curtailed. But it is just so disheartening to see all of the intelligence here focused towards feel-good liberal thinking that just denies reality and turns into lazy thinking. "the stain is now washed away"--NO IT IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!

Democracy.

Democracy is about people making

an informed choice to be responsible

for their lives and conduct.

Well brother Shmuel what do you think of Obama's pick for chief of staff?

Barack has your back my brother!

Peace

Democracy.

Democracy is about people making

an informed choice to be responsible

for their lives and conduct.

Craig:

Ben Smith of Politico reports about the internet rumor mill meltdown, "A reader with some roots in New York Jewish politics writes:

'So the president-elect who the Internet and my uncle say is a closet Muslim madrasa alumnus is poised to name a congressman who the Internet and my uncle says is a top Mossad double agent as his White House chief of staff.'"

Lindsey Graham puts out a statement stepping on the GOP message that he's a hyper-partisan pick:

"This is a wise choice by President-elect Obama.

"Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills. He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together. He is well-suited for the position of White House Chief of Staff.

"I worked closely with him during the presidential debate negotiations which were completed in record time. When we hit a rough spot, he always looked for a path forward. I consider Rahm to be a friend and colleague. He's tough but fair. Honest, direct, and candid. These qualities will serve President-elect Obama well.

"Rahm understands the challenges facing our nation and will, consistent with the agenda set by President-elect Obama, work to find common ground where it exists. I look forward to working with him in his new position and will continue to do everything I can to help find a pathway forward on the difficult problems facing our nation."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/lindsey_graham_praises_emanuel.php

Back to the blog topic... writers, academics, reporters say what Obama's win means, as compiled by Thomas Schaller of Salon.com:

Everyone agrees that Barack Obama's election sent a powerful message to the country and the world, that it was and is a meaningful moment.

But what, exactly, does it mean?

I solicited a platoon of reporters, bloggers, commentators, academics and policy wonks on what they think it means, forcing them to winnow down their answers to a single sentence that begins with the same two words: "It means ..."

Here are more than three dozen responses, sorted alphabetically. Some are funny, others serious; many are poignant, a few are edgy.

But all of them, I think, are pretty darn good. Here goes:

It means we can see the end of Nixonland from here.
-- Spencer Ackerman, senior reporter, the Washington Independent

It means "hope" is not a four-letter word ... but "Bush" is.
-- Sean Aday, associate professor of media studies, George Washington University

It means you can run for office no matter your name.
-- Kenneth Baer, Democratic speechwriter and principal, Baer Communication

It means the long national nightmare is over.
Dean Baker, economist, Center for Economic Policy Research

It means that after years of splintering divisiveness, we're back in this together again.
-- Jared Bernstein, economist, Economic Policy Institute

It means Americans are starting to realize that there's nothing compassionate about conservatism.
-- Brian Beutler, blogger, brianbeutler.com

It means the Union won, with unions.
-- Lindsay Beyerstein, freelance journalist, majikthise.com

It means the era of conservatism is over.
-- Michael Cohen, senior research fellow, New America Foundation

It means that this damned thing [conservatism] doesn't work!
-- Brian Cook, editor, In These Times (invoking Doc Brown)

It means the 9/11 era -- of dealing with the world 9/11 created rather than using 9/11 as a political club -- has finally begun.
-- Brad DeLong, economics professor, UC-Berkeley

It means that James Cheney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman did not die in vain.
-- Matthew Duss, research associate, Center for American Progress Action Fund

It means that my two sons will grow up in a country where everybody knows that an African-American can become president.
-- Henry Farrell, assistant professor, George Washington University

It means the Democrats have two years to show they can govern through effective, progressive policymaking … tick, tick, tick.
-- Tim Fernholz, writing fellow, the American Prospect

It means that, following the political equivalent of locusts, the plague, the trials of Job, and 40 years (more or less) in the wilderness, it is actually fun to be a Democrat again.
-- Kathy Geier, the G Spot

It means the world is ready to follow if America is ready to lead.
-- Mark Leon Goldberg, Undispatch.com

It means that we grabbed the steering wheel and pulled on the hand brake just before this bus called the U.S. of A. careened into the abyss.
-- Jaana Goodrich, Echidne of the Snakes

It means that the Republican Party has to give up appeals to coded racism and accept the reality that United States is a multiethnic democracy.
-- Jeet Heer, freelance journalist, Regina, Saskatchewan

It means that the conservative era is over, and a progressive one has a chance to begin.
-- Michael Kazin, professor of history, Georgetown University

It means Barack Obama now has earned the additional challenge of showing that he's not Bill Clinton, circa 1993, and that 2010 won't be 1994.
-- Ed Kilgore, managing editor, the Democratic Strategist

It means that the voters will punish incompetence, even at the cost of voting for intelligence and eloquence.
-- Mark A.R. Kleiman, professor of public policy, UCLA

It means that the 9/11 era is over.
-- Ezra Klein, senior editor, the American Prospect

It means the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
-- Joe Klein, columnist, Time

It means at least three Supreme Court justices who aren't vetted by the religious right.
-- Andrew Leonard, Salon

It means the end of the great national nightmare that began on April 12, 1861, when Americans began the long struggle to determine what an American is -- that the hue of a citizen's skin does not determine their value to themselves and their fellow citizens of this great experiment.
-- Robert Mackey, historian and consultant, Washington, D.C.

It means that sometimes being "pro-America" means different things to voters than to politicians.
-- Mike Madden, Salon

It means that I will see a Latino president and Supreme Court justice in my lifetime.
-- Sylvia Manzano, political scientist, Texas A&M University

It means the North has won the Civil War.
-- Harold Meyerson, Washington Post columnist and American Prospect editor at large

It means market fundamentalism no longer has a veto and it is now possible to build an economy with widely shared prosperity.
-- Larry Mishel, Economic Policy Institute

It means America is not afraid!
-- Dayo Olopade, reporter, the Root

It means there is more to America than is dreamt in Karl Rove's philosophy.
-- Harold Pollack, public health researcher and writer, University of Chicago

It means that the term "proud conservative" is now more toxic than "San Francisco liberal" ever was.
-- Sarah Posner, columnist, the American Prospect

It means the Democrats have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make good on some bold promises.
-- Eric Rauchway, professor of history, UC-Davis

It means national conversations about sexism and homophobia are up next.
-- Alyssa Rosenberg, staff correspondent, Government Executive

It means, as a friend in Tbilisi, Georgia, said to me today, that our nation managed to "push the reset button," and in one action, revived all the wonderful, idealistic overtones that go with the word "America."
-- Jeremy Rosner, Democratic pollster, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research

It means power even that seems at times absolute is ultimately fleeting.
-- Laura Rozen, journalist, Mother Jones

It means, as ever, that America is capable of surprising itself -- and the world.
-- Tom Schaller, Salon

It means Barack Obama will be able to get a cab in New York anytime he wants.
-- Adam Serwer, the American Prospect

It means that some right-wing entrepreneur will be on the market with the "Obama Countdown Clock" within the week.
-- Walter Shapiro, Salon

It means that we can finally have someone represent the black community to mainstream America who isn't Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or wearing a summertime fur coat and platinum chains.
-- Jesse Taylor, founder and editor, Pandagon.net

It means sunset has arrived after Reagan's morning in America, and it's now the optimistic dawn of a bright new day.
-- Mark Thoma, Economist's View

It means the beginning of the end of a nightmare that began on Nov. 4, 1980.
-- Jonathan Weiler, political scientist, UNC Chapel Hill

It means that principled, visionary domestic and foreign policy need not come at the expense of morality and justice.
-- Patricia Weitsman, political scientist, Ohio University

Indeed Preity! Nice compliation of quotes.

Obama will prove to be more pro-Israel than any president we have yet had; in fact, I think this election is working out in far grander scales than simply having the first black American president. History ever evolves, but sometimes we make profound leaps towards our destiny!

A temple yet remains to be built. Will we choose to do so, or will our Messiah literally have to descend from the heavens before this happens . . .

I was always hoping humankind would choose to create a socialist utopia with our own free-will, as Scripture indicates we can, and then there is the alternative of a cosmic conflagration in Israel; one of these alternatives shall come to pass, or perhaps both of them! I don’t yet know how this shall play out . . .

But one thing is assured: Zionists are in firm control of American foreign policy.

I don’t have a problem with that! What will be was writ before time existed.

Peace

It doesn't just mean (as McCain cowardly said in his concession speech) that 'blacks have every reason to rejoice" It means that all of humanity has reason to rejoice. We ARE ACTUALLY consciously evolving!
Thank Source/God!

"We will see immediate change globally. The rest of the world breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the neocons' attempt to create an American military empire. "

Because the American people have let go of the image of a threatening rest of the world, all other countries are now showing themselves as the friends they have the potential to be. Changing one's perception always changes one's world. And that is the big step America has taken.

"We here in Holland are usually a very sober kind of people"

I don´t know if it´s the TV shows I watched about Amsterdam or what, but this comment makes me smile. Perhaps it´s just the tourists who don´t follow
the soberness. :)

Aloha Olivia #7

African Americans now have a sense of entitlement that is equalized by all. It is like Whoopi Goldberg shares her suitcase is now firmly on the floor.

Mahalo Preity for the quotes. love patty

Olivia

Jesus talked positively and never offended anyone,
all the way through his suffering and death.

Was he "denying reality too" ? By focusing on the positive, we attract the positive. If that annoys you, there´s plenty of websites on non-positive stuff on the Internet. But please let us talk and energize through our attention, all the positive things that are going on the
world right now.

Rafael

Convulsions, sobs, laughter? Obagasm!!

The convulsions and sobs of the last two days? The stock market reacting to an Obama presidency! Punitive stance toward all things capitalistic...

gonna be a fun four years....."the fourth Jesus!"

:)

It´s so nice to barely tolerate conservatives, rather than giving them fierce opposition. Those last 8 years made me forget just how great that felt. Conservatives, back to da barn!!

Ahhh brother Norm! Well if the much ballyhooed American automoblie giants are the face of capitalism, then obviously capitalism sucks!

O yeah!

Gloria La Riva for POTUS!

O, whoops, 2 late.

Damn.

Well at least we got a brother in there b4 all heck breaks loose.

Har har har

#19 "the fourth Jesus!"

Nope. It's the "Fourth Republic."

See, what the naysayers and the cynics don't get it that it's not about Obama...it's about the American people.

Michael Lind writes a compelling thesis at Salon:

Obama and the dawn of the Fourth Republic
His victory really may mark the beginning of a new era in American history.

Nov. 7, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- The election of Barack Obama to the presidency may signal more than the end of an era of Republican presidential dominance and conservative ideology. It may mark the beginning of a Fourth Republic of the United States.

In the past generation Bruce Ackerman, Theodore Lowi and I, in different ways, have used the idea of "republics" to understand American history. Since the French Revolution, France has been governed by five republics (plus two empires, a directory and a fascist dictatorship). Since the American Revolution, we Americans have been governed by several republics as well. But because we, like the British, pay lip service to formal continuity more than do the French, we pretend that we have been living under the same government since the federal Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1787-88. Our successive American republics from the 18th century to the 21st have been informal and unofficial.

As I see it, to date there have been three American republics, each lasting 72 years (give or take a few years). The First Republic of the United States, assembled following the American Revolution, lasted from 1788 to 1860. The Second Republic, assembled following the Civil War and Reconstruction (that is, the Second American Revolution) lasted from 1860 to 1932. And the Third American Republic, assembled during the New Deal and the civil rights eras (the Third American Revolution), lasted from 1932 until 2004.

Yes, you read that correctly -- 2004, not 2008. A case can be made that the new era actually began four years ago. True, Bush, a relic of the waning years of the previous era, was reelected. But immediately after his reelection, the American people repudiated his foreign policy and his domestic policy, including Social Security privatization. In 2006 the Democrats swept the Republicans out of Congress, and in 2008 they have recaptured the White House.

To be sure, every shift in partisan control of government does not amount to the founding of a new republic. Obama did not win a landslide or have long coattails. His coalition is a slightly larger version of the Democratic Party that was forged in the partisan realignment of 1968-72. And the public is still divided among liberals, moderates and conservatives much as it has been for a decade or two. But my scenario does not depend on Obama's election or even on Democratic control of Congress. The Fourth Republic might have gotten off to a start -- a bad start, but a start -- under Republican auspices.

Policy shifts, more than public opinion polls or election results, suggest that a truly transformative moment may be upon us. The first three American republics display a remarkably similar pattern. Their 72-year life span is divided into two 36-year periods (again, give or take a year -- this is not astrology). During the first 36-year period of a republic, ambitious nation-builders in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton strengthen the powers of the federal government and promote economic modernization. During the second 36-year phase of a republic, there is a Jeffersonian backlash, in favor of small government, small business and an older way of life. During the backlash era, Jeffersonians manage to modify, but never undo, the structure created by the Hamiltonians in the previous era.

We see this pattern of Hamiltonian nation-building and Jeffersonian backlash in the First, Second and Third Republics of the United States. Between 1788 and 1824, the ideas of the centralizing, nation-building Federalist Party of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton succeeded. Although Jefferson and his small-government allies controlled the White House and Congress for much of this period, in practice they implemented a streamlined, cheaper version of the Federalist plan for America. Jefferson's Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin, for example, supported a program of infrastructure and industrialization not all that different from Alexander Hamilton's. And Jefferson himself, contradicting his small-government philosophy, exercised sweeping powers as president, purchasing the Louisiana Territory from France on his own initiative and promoting a federal embargo on U.S. exports to Britain and France. The first Jeffersonian backlash came later, under Andrew Jackson and his allies between 1824 and 1860.

The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 triggered the secession of the South, the Civil War and Reconstruction -- the Second American Revolution and the founding of the Second Republic of the United States. During and after the Civil War, Lincoln's Republican Party remade the United States. In addition to crushing the South and freeing the slaves, the Republicans nationalized the banking system, promoted U.S. industry through high tariffs, carpeted the continent with federally subsidized railroads and used the sale of federal lands to pay for state colleges. From 1896, the Jeffersonian backlash against the system created by the Lincoln Republicans was led by Southern and Western agrarian populists and middle-class Progressives in the Northeast who, for different reasons, were alienated from the new order. While they achieved some reforms, the Jeffersonians failed to modify the essential features of the Lincoln-to-Hoover Second Republic.

The Third Republic of the United States was built by New Deal Democrats and liberal Republicans between 1932 and 1968. During the initial Hamiltonian phase, even more power was centralized in the federal government, which carried out national economic regulation, built power plants and electric grids, highways and airports, created Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, and used federal power to dismantle racial segregation. Inevitably the period of Hamiltonian reform was followed by a Jeffersonian backlash that lasted from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush. Once again, populists and libertarians emphasizing different parts of the Jeffersonian legacy tinkered with the new order but failed to overturn it. Under Reagan and the second Bush, the right managed to cut income taxes and capital gains taxes. But their failure to shrink the size of post-New Deal government meant that their tax cuts, instead of inspiring less spending, merely produced enormous deficits.

George W. Bush was not only the final president of the Jeffersonian backlash period of Roosevelt's Third Republic, but the last president of the 1932-2004 Third Republic itself. The final president of a republic tends to be a failed, despised figure. The First Republic, which began with George Washington, ended with James Buchanan, a hapless president who refused to act as the South seceded after Lincoln's election. The Second Republic, which began with Abraham Lincoln, ended with the well-meaning but reviled and ineffectual Herbert Hoover. The Third Republic, founded by Franklin Roosevelt, came to a miserable end under the pathetic George W. Bush.

The election of 2004 was a fluke, like the election of 1824. The Jacksonian era -- that is, the Jeffersonian backlash period of the 1788-1860 First Republic -- began in 1824, even though John Quincy Adams became president after losing the popular vote to Andrew Jackson. (Jackson won the next two elections.) Likewise, the Fourth Republic arguably began in 2004, the narrow reelection of George W. Bush notwithstanding. 2008 is Year Four of the Fourth American Revolution.

If this analysis is right, what causes these cycles of reform and backlash in American politics? I believe they are linked indirectly to stages of technological and economic development. Lincoln's Second American Republic marked a transition from an agrarian economy to one based on the technologies of the first industrial revolution -- coal-fired steam engines and railroads. Roosevelt's Third American Republic was built with the tools of the second industrial revolution -- electricity and internal combustion engines. It remains to be seen what energy sources -- nuclear? Solar? Clean coal? -- and what technologies -- nanotechnology? Photonics? Biotech-- will be the basis of the next American economy. (Note: I'm talking about the material, real-world manufacturing and utility economy, not the illusory "information economy" beloved of globalization enthusiasts in the 1990s, who pretended that deindustrialization by outsourcing was a higher state of industrialism.)

Naturally, the Americans alive during the founding of new American republics have other issues on their minds. The Civil War was fought over slavery, not steam engines, and the New Deal, for all of FDR's commitment to nationwide electrical power fed by hydroelectric dam projects, was animated by a vision of social justice. The broad outlines of technological and economic change merely provide the frame for the picture; the details depend on the groups that emerge victorious in political battles.

That is why it is too early to predict the outline of the Fourth American Republic. Its shape depends on the outcomes of the debates and struggles of the next generation. But it is possible to speculate about its life span. If the pattern of history holds, the Fourth Republic of the United States will last for roughly 72 years, from 2004 (or, if you like, 2008) to 2076. And if the pattern of the past holds, we will see a period of Hamiltonian centralization and reform between now and 2040, followed by an approximately 36-year long Jeffersonian backlash motivated by ideals of libertarianism and decentralization.

And even if I am right that the new era began four years ago, historians are likely to identify the first president of the Fourth Republic of the United States as Barack Obama, not George W. Bush. Obama may join Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the short list of American presidents who, thanks both to their own leadership and the fortuitous timing of their elections, presided over the refounding of the United States. Yes, he can.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/07/fourth_republic/index.html

On the same note, check out what our latest Nobel Laureate in Economics has to say:

"Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008, is a date that will live in fame (the opposite of infamy) forever. If the election of our first African-American president didn’t stir you, if it didn’t leave you teary-eyed and proud of your country, there’s something wrong with you.

"But will the election also mark a turning point in the actual substance of policy? Can Barack Obama really usher in a new era of progressive policies? Yes, he can."

The Obama Agenda
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 7, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/opinion/07krugman.html

Re. Craig/Preity

Rahm Emanuel Pick Shows Obama Wants to Win - Ben Smith & John Harris, Politico

Emanuel pick sends powerful signal
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15388.html

"The selection of Emanuel, one of the Democratic Party’s most effective operatives over the past two decades, was a powerful signal of Obama’s determination to be effective under the existing rules of the Washington game.

“He’s from the Lombardi wing of the party — he’s a guy who wants to win at any cost and will do whatever it takes,” said John Lapp, a former top Emanuel aide at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Lapp called Emanuel “the best possible pick — a perfectionist and fighter who loves the president[-elect] like a brother.”

If so, he’s a sibling who long ago showed he knows how to talk back in the family. As a longtime aide to Bill Clinton, Emanuel was known for his willingness to talk bluntly to colleagues from the president on down."

...

Apparently he is also known as Rahm-bo (quiet aptly actually):

On the night after the 1996 election, "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."

"The Enforcer". Rolling Stone
Green, Joshua (October 20, 2005).
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8091986/the_enforcer/

Emanuel is said to have "mailed a rotting fish to a former coworker after the two parted ways."

His "take-no-prisoners attitude" earned him the nickname "Rahm-bo".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

#18,

With all due respect, Rafael, no Jesus absolutely did not talk positively throughout his life. Many times he pointed out things that upset him and also frequently pointed out social injustice as well as criticizing hypocrisy (I mention this just to illustrate that he was by no means a Pollyanna). For example, off the top of my head one thing he said was "The poor will always be among us." Also, you mentioned that Jesus "never offended anyone". Ah yes, he did offend many people--at the end of his life he obviously had made some enemies and many people were quite "offended" by what he had to say. You might want to reread that part of the gospel if you somehow missed that.
You guys can talk all you want. And talk as positively as you all want. I am just pointing out that it absolutely is denial of reality--the group of people who think that Obama's being elected has somehow healed the wound of slavery. The problems in the black community are worse than they were say, 30 years ago (and yes, this is all a festering continually morphing dysfunction which traces back to slavery). That is not "negativity" but rather the honest truth. Obama's status--the status of an elite and powerful man--is not reflective of the reality of the black community, that they have somehow become "healed" and upwardly mobile or whatever is implied by this idea that the wound of slavery has been magically removed by Obama being elected. Poverty has increased in the black community over the past couple of years. The majority of black fathers do abandon their children. Black on black violence has increased. Obama's being elected does not change this reality, and furthermore, will not change this reality.

#25

We all have our shadow and our light. I enjoy seeing the good things blacks can offer coming to surface through Obama. If you´d rather focus on their shadow,it´s your right. But to me, true denial of reality is to deny the light existing in blacks
because you don´t like their shadow.

I gotta say, even though I know I am going to be frustrated and disappointed in the Democratic trifecta at least some, and possibly even most, of the time these coming two years, winning for a change is pretty cool. No matter what else happens, this feels good.

quote from a brilliant, classy neoconartist...

"Convulsions, sobs, laughter? Obagasm!!"

hellooooooooo.....................

Times' World Edition calls Obama's historic win a "Masterclass in Democracy:"

"No-where is the competition for power more open, inspiring or capable of real change than in America. The rest of the world would do well to look and learn"

"When the moment came, TV panellists who had talked volubly all evening suddenly found it hard to say a word. "

"On Tuesday night, with a countdown to precisely 10pm Chicago time, American democracy transformed in an instant not only the hopes and expectations of African Americans, but also the self-image of their country and their country’s image in the world."

"The world has been fascinated and profoundly moved by this election most of all because of what America is — a nation founded on universal aspirations, and thus a mirror to humanity. For two centuries that mirror has seemed irreparably cracked by the legacy of slavery and segregation, a pernicious and enduring racism that remains a factor in the blighted lives of so many of the poor blacks among whom Mr Obama launched his political career. He is not the last role model they will ever need, but he is the most powerful proof his country has produced that it is ready to judge them by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin."

"The delirium in Grant Park came mainly from the young, diverse, tech-savvy America that gave the Obama campaign many of its footsoldiers and much of its money."

"America may have faltered in its efforts to export democracy, but this time, at home, it has delivered a masterclass in the real thing."

Interesting view by Mr Lind in #22.

Also these quotes from #13 caught my eye:

*It means that the Republican Party has to give up appeals to coded racism and accept the reality that United States is a multiethnic democracy.
-- Jeet Heer, freelance journalist, Regina, Saskatchewan

*It means the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
-- Joe Klein, columnist, Time

*It means at least three Supreme Court justices who aren't vetted by the religious right.
-- Andrew Leonard, Salon

*It means that we can finally have someone represent the black community to mainstream America who isn't Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or wearing a summertime fur coat and platinum chains.
-- Jesse Taylor, founder and editor, Pandagon.net

It's the beginning of something, as Barack himself points out, that will go on long after he is President. If he's smart (and he is) he will recognize that his job is to lay down long-term foundations for the next half-century.

And Barack, it must be remembered, is not as liberal as his Democratic base. He carried many formerly Republican states and districts because he convinced them that he wasn't a screaming liberal.

That wasn't just a campaign tactic. He isn't.

But that is going to be a help for him, not a hindrance. I look forward to the day when Republican and Democratic congressmen can once again argue forcefully on the floor for their views, be heard, and at the end of the day enjoy a drink together. I believe that political adverserialism is part of our system, but personal wars between politicians is not. It's OK to disagree on the floor. It's not Ok to keep "target lists" of political adversaries, and use your political office to leverage against them personally. I hope everybody got that message after the disgraceful behavior of Alberto Gonzales wirth the US justices, Karl Rove with his many political victims, Dick Cheney with his outing of valerie Plame, and most recently, Sarah Palin using her political office to fight a family feud for her sister.

If anything, there's a "hope" (at least for me) that we will have under Obama a White house that understands the pitfalls of gangsta politics and refuses, as he did in his campaign, to participate in them.

I found Mr Lind's idea that the four republics, as he calls them, are defined by the type of energy and products produced by industry of their time. It is true that we need to re-define how we acquire and use energy to power our production in the next fifty years. Many people have pointed to Al Gore and suggest that he be made "Energy Czar" under Obama. I think that's a bad idea for two reasons: (1) it's way too politically partisan, and like it or not, appointing Gore would keep the spectre of Clinton way too visible in Obama's White House.(2) It would be a violation of the promise Gore himself made to stay out of politics and pursue his environmental goals in a non-partisan way.

Al Gore has a big organization, and has millions of Americans on the organization's email list, and thousands actively working for the organization. Therefore, I think Obama should seriously consider the recommendations of the Gore people re the energy and environment, but NOT make him a political appointee.

Re foreign policy, I think what Obama represents is a return to (hold the rotten tomatoes, please) old-fashioned conservative foreign policy - by which I mean the opposite of Neo-conservative policy. Before the neocons, Conservatives were reticent to get directly involved in foreign wars, let alone start them, but they still had a strong belief in maintaining a strong US military and using diplomacy and covert action to achieve foreign policy goals. And also, support for Israel, as empyrius points out. This is hardly a liberal agenda, folks. The permanent bases in Iraq are going to remain there under Obama, and while he will definitely tone down the hot war in favor of diplomatic initiatives and covert action, he is still going to pursue the American agenda in the Middle East. In fact, I think he could not have been President if he didn't. He would have been disposed if quickly (a la John Edwards) if AIPAC and Military/Industrial complex thought he was going to rock their boat too much.

Again, I don't think that was a just a campaign ploy. I think Obama is really a pre-necon conservative on foreign policy, and I think the realization that he is got him a lot of votes and endorsements that otherwise would have gone to McCain.

Don't forget that Bush really lost power when traditional conservatives realized the neocons were not their own. There's a lot of people out there that voted for Obama not because they are liberal, but because they are disenchanted conservatives. Seeing Obama profess pre-neocon conservative views affected them in a way that should not be underestimated.

The same disenfranchised traditonal conservatives can really help Obama build a new foundation for America, and if he's smart (and he is) he will realize he cannot afford to turn his back on this constituency after the election.

That's all for now.

Ver interesting stuff everybody! Yeah, I know I come from a far far left angle, wanting the United States to immediately destroy "The Complex" (military-industrial-blah-blah-blah), and thinking we could all become Jesus-like socialists: BUT IT WILL HAPPEN ONE DAY!

But I know for myself, I gotta quit laying into people so heavily in my blogs, I can justify my inner fury all day long to myself, but it has not been impressing many, if any, people, and in fact it makes my "Christian socialism" look plainly stupid.

I'm gonna get my resume put together this weekend and get a job somehow, somewhere, and seriously cut down on the boozing (just keep it green man!) Arrr . . .

Yo yogi-one, what is happening down in my good old Auburn, I saw on Fox news a 16 year old girl drove her car into the Green River with two children ages 14 and 2 trapped inside! This is terrible. I pray the children will be alright!

But it does not sound good at the moment (click on my name for details). . .

Sad

In fact Rabbi Lerner has a rather sobering view of what appointing Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff really means . . .

Obama will probably end up being more militant than the neocons.

Oh well, at least we can say there is a portion of white America who is willing to give a black guy a chance.

Peace

Hi Meiki, thanks :)

I have always wanted to visit Amsterdam. As for the dutch keeping both feet on the ground I bet the wooden shoes make a big difference.

President Obama!

#27,

OK, I will try to look at everyone's light and not their shadow.
That seems kind of a non-holistic way of viewing things though.
The shadow exists as much as the light.
I think it does black people a disservice to deny the reality of the plight in their community. It is like me walking through a crumbling ghetto and saying--"What a nice flower growing there in that crack in the concrete?" And someone saying "Yeah that was a nice flower but did you notice the crumbling ghetto buildings?"
And me saying "No, no, I did not see that I chose to only see the flower."
Does that make me benvolent? Of course not. It would mean I am completely blind to the reality around me.

# 32. Less than 1 mile from our house. VERY sad. Down on the bridge where we went to the park for you to shoot hoops, and Rio you and I, to toss football, and play frisby.

I'm sure the kids did not make it.....car is still missing. Parents are still at the river.(on the back road we took home the last time you came home) I am going down right now to offer some support. It's the least I can offer. I can't even imagine....

Hello wonderful Riversylph!

two fellers from oklahoma came in to the Ranch last nite...

they drank Budweisers and rum and coke...i had a brief chat with them.. for clarity i'll call them joes (J)

D...i see ur state is all red

J...of yeah...every single precinct in our state went for the repubican

D...why is that?

J...we are an energy state, we love our guns and we don't like to bust our asses to share the wealth with those who don't pay taxes

D...but someone has to pay to build and repair the roads, schools, and levees...

J...we know...but..

D...don't u think those who make more should pay more?

J...we're not so sure...sonny...

D..do u know that the national debt has doubled under bushman from 5 trillion to 10 trillion..

J...most of us don't think about things like that

D...why not?

J...aahhh..by the way...who do we owe the money to?

D...china, international lenders, i think?

J...hmmnn

D...who is gonna pay off the debt and the interest on it?...

J...that's a scary thought...

damn!

Olivia:

How can you even pretend to speak for us black people.

Believe me when I say, the stain HAS been washed away".

Olivia, you would make a nice flower ;)
I do agree with your view of the reality now and appreciate the role you are called to play on IntenBlog stage. But, playing with these keywords myself, it is a stage and we all are floewers of enormous potential. Don't hang on to your view for too long. It's a drag on the next stage which covers the ghetto with flowers.

Cross my heart ;)

# 17

Dear Rafael, smiling too :)

Well, in my experience as a dutch woman, grown up in the south of our country, Amsterdam is only a small representation of what our country really is like.

The west of our country including Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague etc. is all about living 'the fast life' and everything that sprouts from that fast life nowadays. Everyone thinks real life is only happening there.

The rest of our country, and I suppose this is the same in for instance U.S. too, is the country side where the real backbone of a country lives.

Best wishes,

Mieke

Hi Richard #34,

Well if you visit Amsterdam one day I hope you will enjoy it, for what it is worth.

Me, standing in my own wooden shoes in a total different part of our country, have found heaven on earth inside and in the end, that does not depend on anything outside that is seen as a 'trend' :)

Love, Mieke

O my Riversylph, my Riversylph . . .