I felt nothing but national pride, genuine happiness, and even hope (!) watching President-elect Barack Obama’s acceptance speech last Tuesday night. “From now on,” I thought, “people will remember this as the last great racial hurdle in America, and we can continue to work to form a more perfect union.”
Even McCain’s concession speech confirmed it as the limping, sad grandpa quieted his rabid crowd of fanatics and praised Obama’s remarkable achievement in “inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president.” Gracious words.
And in that moment, all seemed well. I tucked myself into bed happily surprised with the American people, my faith in the progression of humanity temporarily reinforced.
Then my mind wandered a bit, considering the unlikely possibility that Ohio and California went red and the entire Northeast pulled an overnight 180. How would I have felt about the less-likely alternative occurring, especially considering that I voted (knowing full well that he would lose all 77 counties in my Midwestern deep-red state) for the skinny, 47-year-old black man with big ears?
The answer: I speculate I would feel less hopeful (don’t confuse my hope for society with Obama’s “Hope”) though not in the least disappointed in the American people, at least not in the way the blindly partisan people booing Obama at McCain’s concession speech were. Had McCain been elected, I’d forever consider America the timid eight-year-old, whiffing at a softball primed on a tee. McCain, in all likelihood, would do a good job leading the country he loves (a lot) but I would find no joy or solace in the fact that a debilitated old man with questionable judgment (see: Palin) governed my home, particularly when this year’s model is slyer, sleeker, and far more appealing as a leader.
But is this happiness only temporary? I suspect it is. The novelty of “America’s First Black President” will wear off in time, and Obama will probably return to the stock presidential position as “Somebody I Never See in Person or Talk To, Yet Gently Mock Via the Internet.” What happens then? This may eventually come back to bite America in the ass if Obama suddenly finds that his community organizer days and paltry few years in the Senate weren’t enough to prepare him for dealing with foreign heads of state, national energy crises, and international terrorism.
And then there is the daily reminder of the political color of my state and school. Bill Maher once asked this question lampooning college Republicans: “Usually you have to be older and married before you start hating life so much you try to blame the Mexicans for all your problems, don't you?”
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lisa Solod Warren
I for one DO find joy. I just wish people would give him a chance before predicting a total f---up a la Carter. It seems the Repubs are just itching for his failure instead of hoping that he can actually do something good for this country. WHY would anyone want the country to go down the tubes just to prove they were right? Won't they suffer, too? It would seem, wouldn't it, that we would all benefit, if our country made some wonderful, positive changes that got our nation back on track?
I mean, maybe, just maybe, we HAVE been doing it wrong for the past many years? Maybe, just maybe, having a really smart, thoughtful, creative man in the White House IS a good idea.
Nahhhhh:)
2 - Dave Nalle
It really would be awfully difficult for Obama to fuck up as badly as Carter. He's bringing in a lot of the worst of the Clinton appointees like the senile and demented Madeleine Albright, but they're still better than the fools Carter surrounded himself with.
Dave
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Time for me to start an argument -
Carter was NOT as f--ked up as you all think he was.
4 - bliffle
Glenn,
I agree: the Bash Carter movement is really overdone. For one thing, Carter achieved the only peace treaty in the middle east (Israel-Egypt), and it still endures to this day.
Also, Carter was better attuned to future needs for conservation and alternative energy.
5 - Al Barger
Carney, what you're talking about here is not any particular victory for democracy. Democracy wins just by having an election, whoever gets voted in.
But what I'm long weary of is the obsession with race as you document it here in your own small and relatively benign way. The problem we've bought is that we elected not Barack Obama based on his actual personhood, record and policy views. We all went out to elect a Black Man - with little regard to anything he actually said or did. He went on about the bitter Pennsylvanians and even promised to intentionally "bankrupt" the coal industry - and he carried Pennsylvania.
You might consider the possibility that just maybe some folks ain't buying Obama because he's a socialist who has spent a goodly amount of timing palling and making common cause with rabid haters of America. Plus, he has no experience in running anything ever. And he wants to increase capital gains taxes among others in the teeth of a recession. That's fairly scary to anyone with any relation to reality.
This election was not particularly a victory for democracy, but more a victory for Racial Symbolism. It's all well and good that everybody gets to feel good about how not prejudiced they are. Heck, I shamefully admit that my Indiana 90 years ago was Klan central, so I can appreciate some representation of progress as Obama is the first Democrat to carry Indiana since LBJ in '64.
But considering the major problems the country is facing, I just can't get much satisfaction with that business because it was done for dumb emotionalism at the expense of buying a pig in a socialist poke.
6 - zingzing
"...we elected not Barack Obama based on his actual personhood, record and policy views. We all went out to elect a Black Man - with little regard to anything he actually said or did."
that's why no one watched the debates. speak for yourself, al. "we" didn't go out to elect that black man, we voted for the person that best fit our views. so don't spout that bullshit.
"He went on about the bitter Pennsylvanians and even promised to intentionally "bankrupt" the coal industry - and he carried Pennsylvania."
more bullshit! hicks who cling to guns and god ARE bitter. and he didn't say one damn word about bankrupting the coal industry. that's just republican nonsense.
"You might consider the possibility that just maybe some folks ain't buying Obama because he's a socialist who has spent a goodly amount of timing palling and making common cause with rabid haters of America."
the election's over. you can stop with "socialist" and "america-hating." it's too fuckin late to make up bullshit. you obviously don't know what socialism is, and if you think obama hates america, you're just ignorant.
prince rocks!
7 - bliffle
Dave is wrong, as usual. In recent months I've heard Madeline Albright at a couple of discussion forums and she's as sharp as a tack. "Senile and demented" she is NOT.
By now it must have become clear to even the most obtuse intelligence (Nalle, Clavos, Archie, etc.) that the Bush regime may entirely wreck the USA economy and our chances of survival.
And those guys were bigtime cheerleaders and apologists for Bushes transgressions. Enablers.
8 - Clavos
"
weA little more than half of us voted for the person that best fit our views."There. Fixed it for ya, zing.
9 - bliffle
I suppose that the Bush Enablers even have excuses for the SECRET $2trillion bank scam. Yes, that's a "T" in trillion.
read it and weep:
Bloomberg
10 - zingzing
well, clavos, really, those that didn't vote for obama didn't vote for him, so they don't count in the equation, and that's the point i was making. al said that "we voted for a black man," but that's not true for a lot of us. i don't give a shit. i voted for my views.
now here's where the "half of us" comes in: i'm glad more than half of us voted for a black man.
but i voted for myself, not for a black man.
11 - Clavos
but i voted for myself, not for a black man.
So did I, zing.
Spin it any way you like, but almost half of the electorate did NOT vote for the ideas you voted for.
Almost half.
12 - zingzing
clavos! that's not what i was saying!
al said that "we voted for a black man." right?
so if you did not vote for obama, YOU DID NOT VOTE FOR A BLACK MAN. if you voted for obama, YOU DID.
but those of of that voted for obama (a black man), did not necessarily vote for a black man because he was black. we voted on the issues.
al's trying to make out like we didn't give a shit about anything except the color of his skin, which is FUCKING FALSE. christ.
that's the damn point. stop being so obtuse.
52%-46%, i know, i know. a little more than half of us voted for the black man that was elected.
how the hell am i supposed to put it? IT'S NOT SPIN. we're talking about two separate things.
13 - Clavos
OK, zing, I get it.
Take your BP meds and calm down.
14 - Baronius
Carney - I can't help but notice that most of my fellow conservatives have accepted the results of the election, although we're worried about the actions of an Obama administration. We're willing to work toward common goals. We aren't hate-filled.
Your description of covertly murderous right-wingers and their debilitated old candidate is pretty hateful though. And these Prop 8 protesters can't accept it when democracy doesn't go their way. And the Democrats have a lot to apologize for in their reactions to the prior two presidential elections. So you might want to reanalyze this whole "hate" thing.
15 - zingzing
heh. ok, clavos. sounds good to me. al gets under my skin. but he likes prince, which makes him 52%-46% ok.
16 - zingzing
those who voted for prop 8 are full of hate. it's true. no person who has any humanity in them would vote to deny rights that they enjoy to someone else. it's fucking pathetic and putrid. those that vote against it should have the same rights denied to them. everything they do sickens me.
lalala.
17 - Maurice
It is thrilling to know that a black man can win the votes and trust of America. Even though my beliefs are more in line with Walter Williams than President Elect Obama I have to acknowledge my personal feelings of pride and power knowing that a black man has overcome.
Many of my white friends (I live in RED Idaho) are uncomfortable and obsequious when acknowledging the election. I firmly believe Obama will be given every opportunity to succeed.
18 - Christopher Rose
I don't understand why so many people keep referring to Barack Obama as black when he is half and half. I do understand how that makes him an even better symbol of the emergence of a long overdue more mature USA.
19 - Baronius
Zing, have you been hearing about the protests and arrests in California? The liberals suffered one defeat nationwide a week ago, and it overwhelms them. Some people are now claiming that the prop was confusing.
20 - bliffle
It looks like BushCo is executing a raid on the US treasury before leaving office like a Banana Republic dictator running from justice.
Here, I'll quote the whole Bloomberg article about The $2trillion SECRET bank giveaway scam!
Bloomberg
By Mark Pittman, Bob Ivry and Alison Fitzgerald
Enlarge Image/Details
Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.
``The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that's a big problem,'' said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. ``In a liquid market, this wouldn't matter, but we're not. The market is very nervous and very thin.''
Bloomberg News has requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.
The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
``It's your money; it's not the Fed's money,'' said billionaire Ted Forstmann, senior partner of Forstmann Little & Co. in New York. ``Of course there should be transparency.''
Treasury, Fed, Obama
Federal Reserve spokeswoman Michelle Smith declined to comment on the loans or the Bloomberg lawsuit. Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis didn't respond to a phone call and an e-mail seeking comment.
President-elect Barack Obama's economic adviser, Jason Furman, also didn't respond to an e-mail and a phone call seeking comment from Obama. In a Sept. 22 campaign speech, Obama promised to ``make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people's business.''
The Fed's lending is significant because the central bank has stepped into a rescue role that was also the purpose of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailout plan -- without safeguards put into the TARP legislation by Congress.
Total Fed lending topped $2 trillion for the first time last week and has risen by 140 percent, or $1.172 trillion, in the seven weeks since Fed governors relaxed the collateral standards on Sept. 14. The difference includes a $788 billion increase in loans to banks through the Fed and $474 billion in other lending, mostly through the central bank's purchase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds.
Sept. 14 Decision
Before Sept. 14, the Fed accepted mostly top-rated government and asset-backed securities as collateral. After that date, the central bank widened standards to accept other kinds of securities, some with lower ratings. The Fed collects interest on all its loans.
The plan to purchase distressed securities through TARP called for buying at the ``lowest price that the secretary (of the Treasury) determines to be consistent with the purposes of this Act,'' according to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the law that covers TARP.
The legislation didn't require any specific method for the purchases beyond saying mechanisms such as auctions or reverse auctions should be used ``when appropriate.'' In a reverse auction, bidders offer to sell securities at successively lower prices, helping to ensure that the Fed would pay less. The measure also included a five-member oversight board that includes Paulson and Bernanke.
At a Sept. 23 Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington, Paulson called for transparency in the purchase of distressed assets under the TARP program.
`We Need Transparency'
``We need oversight,'' Paulson told lawmakers. ``We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.''
At a joint House-Senate hearing the next day, Bernanke also stressed the importance of openness in the program. ``Transparency is a big issue,'' he said.
The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks, which gave the Fed collateral in the form of equities and debt, including subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed Web site. The borrowers have included the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Banks oppose any release of information because it might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group.
Frank Backs Fed
``You have to balance the need for transparency with protecting the public interest,'' Talbott said. ``Taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going, but one piece of information standing alone could undermine public confidence in the system.''
The nation's biggest banks, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, declined to comment on whether they have borrowed money from the Fed. They received $120 billion in capital from the TARP, which was signed into law Oct. 3.
In an interview Nov. 6, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said the Fed's disclosure is sufficient and that the risk the central bank is taking on is appropriate in the current economic climate. Frank said he has discussed the program with Timothy F. Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a possible candidate to succeed Paulson as Treasury secretary.
``I talk to Geithner and he was pretty sure that they're OK,'' said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. ``If the risk is that the Fed takes a little bit of a haircut, well that's regrettable.'' Such losses would be acceptable, he said, if the program helps revive the economy.
`Unclog the Market'
Frank said the Fed shouldn't reveal the assets it holds or how it values them because of ``delicacy with respect to pricing.'' He said such disclosure would ``give people clues to what your pricing is and what they might be able to sell us and what your estimates are.'' He wouldn't say why he thought that information would be problematic.
Revealing how the Fed values collateral could help thaw frozen credit markets, said Ron D'Vari, chief executive officer of NewOak Capital LLC in New York and the former head of structured finance at BlackRock Inc.
``I'd love to hear the methodology, how the Fed priced the assets,'' D'Vari said. ``That would unclog the market very quickly.''
TARP's $700 billion so far is being used to buy preferred shares in banks to shore up their capital. The program was originally intended to hold banks' troubled assets while markets were frozen.
AIG Lending
The Bloomberg lawsuit argues that the collateral lists ``are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression.''
The Fed has lent at least $81 billion to American International Group Inc., the world's largest insurer, so that it can pay obligations to banks. AIG today said it received an expanded government rescue package valued at more than $150 billion.
The central bank is also responsible for losses on a $26.8 billion portfolio guaranteed after Bear Stearns Cos. was bought by JPMorgan.
``As a taxpayer, it is absolutely important that we know how they're lending money and who they're lending it to,'' said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia- based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Ratings Cuts
Ultimately, the Fed will have to remove some securities held as collateral from some programs because the central bank's rules call for instruments rated below investment grade to be taken back by the borrower and marked down in value. Losses on those assets could then be written off, partly through the capital recently injected into those banks by the Treasury.
Moody's Investors Service alone has cut its ratings on 926 mortgage-backed securities worth $42 billion to junk from investment grade since Sept. 14, making them ineligible for collateral on some Fed loans.
The Fed's collateral ``absolutely should be made public,'' said Mark Cuban, an activist investor, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team and the creator of the Web site BailoutSleuth.com, which focuses on the secrecy shrouding the Fed's moves.
The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Last Updated: November 10, 2008 15:08 EST
21 - Michael J. West
Some people are now claiming that the prop was confusing.
Perhaps people want to believe that voters in California didn't really know what they were voting for. Because people don't want to believe that voters in California are as hateful as they would necessarily have to be to know what they were voting for in Prop. 8, and to vote for it anyway.
22 - zingzing
the return of michael j. west...
i fainted...
retreat, michael! it will suck you in!
and fuck california.
23 - Baritone
Fat assed Rush has set off against Obama saying "He hasn't done anything yet, but his ideas are wrecking the economy." What an asshole!
Reps are now refering to the 700 billion dollar "bailout" as belonging to the Dems and Obama.
Reps are lambasting Obama for his transition and administration choices - for going to former Clinton people.
First: Both Bush Jr. administrations were and are rife with former Bush (Sr), Reagan and even going back to Ford and Nixon people.
The Clinton administration is the only reasonably recent Democratic administration. Doesn't anyone think that having people with experience in and around the WH a good thing? All you rightys carped all through the campaign about Obama's lack of executive experience. If you think that remains an issue, isn't it preferable that he bring as much "experience" around him as possible?
Oh, Obama is NOT a socialist. A leftist? Yeah, probably. I really hope so. But, I bet you, as I've said before, he will govern much more from the center than you obviously expect. Of course, I may be forgetting that a number of you consider anyone politically to the left of Heinrich Himmler a socialist.
Get over it. You guys fucking lost. You lost big. You did not lose owing to people voting for Obama's skin color. You lost because the Reps have no credibility, no direction, and are politically and ethically bankrupt. You lost because Obama offered hope, all McCain offered was a fight. We've had to endure 8 years (which aren't even over yet for crap sake) of your idiot president and his inept administration which threw is into an unwinnable and totally unnecessary war and in the process destroyed the economy.
Your guys had their turn. They fucked up. Now it's somebody else's turn. If they fuck up, so be it. Then you can cackle and howl and watch the resurrection of the Reps, or even the rise of the Libertarians. A lot can happen in 2 years. But til then...
B
24 - zingzing
damn, baritone. that second to last paragraph says it pretty well.
25 - JAH
Change comes from within first, america has fundamenally shifted more than the media and the 'pundits' realized....this election has shown that we are not as much a bunch of sheep as the 'world' thinks.....change has not come...change has been brought to the surface....as Marley says 'only we can free our minds'.......