Not A Bad Start

Ross Douthat, in his first column for the NY Times, writes about how "instructive" a Cheney candidacy would have been to the Republican Party. Of course nothing would shake most of the right-wing from the belief in the rightness of the Bush presidency, but it might have given moderates and reformers a better chance at seizing control of the party. It's an interesting thought exercise at least.

Dunbar Digs Deeper

Texas State Board of Education member Cynthia Dunbar, whose comments about Barack Obama have gained her some amount of notoriety, is defending herself by not really backing down from what she said:

"When I wrote this article, I wrote it as a private citizen," Dunbar said Wednesday. "I did not use it as a bully pulpit."

The column has sparked Internet debate and prompted phone calls and e-mails to other state board members, with many people asking for a public rebuke or even Dunbar’s resignation. Critics of the column question whether a state official who helps choose school textbooks and shape the state curriculum should express such political views.

On Wednesday, Dunbar told the Star-Telegram that her comments about Obama and a possible terrorist attack had been "misconstrued through repetition."She said she didn’t intend to imply that Obama was actually plotting with terrorists, as the headline said.

"My concern is that there are associations that would feel more comfortable and more safe to attack with Obama as president," she said.

She said her comments were based on Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s statement that Obama would be tested by terrorists within the first six months of his administration.

"My point was, I’m not saying that Obama would not respond to an attack, I just think the apprehension of not doing an attack would have been greater with McCain as president," Dunbar said.

Really? Now, what did she actually write in her original column? Oh yeah, this:

"I sincerely believe that an Obama Administration would ultimately mean one thing - the end of America as we know her."

So her qualifications are a little hard to buy. And, as she told the AP in an earlier story, "I don't have anything in there that would be retractable." So if she said America is ending, then America is ending! And if she's trying to end the controversy, it probably would help not to say things like this:

She remains unconvinced that Obama is a legal U.S. citizen, she said Thursday. The president-elect was born in Hawaii but lived in Indonesia as a young child. His mother is U.S.-born; his father was Kenyan.

His campaign posted an image of Obama’s birth certificate online and state officials attested to its authenticity, but theories that he is not a citizen persist.

"Yes, I’ve seen the birth certificate posted online. I’ve read all the articles," Dunbar said. "What concerns me is the time he spent in Indonesia. His time in Indonesia would be a substantive issue, and I really don’t know why it hasn’t been examined more closely."

A suit questioning Obama’s citizenship was thrown out of court early in the presidential campaign.

"The birth certificate does not address all the citizenship concerns raised in this suit," Dunbar said in a follow up e-mail.

I'm not sure why Ms. Dunbar would care to bother with so lowly an office as the State Board of Education, when she's clearly more suited for local right-wing radio talk show host or right-wing blogger.

And yes, she has the right to say whatever she wants. It's not that I think that as a state official, she suddenly loses the right to express an opinion about a critical election. It's more the quality of the opinion that she expresses. I'm writing about this because I think it's important to ask, if she's really this prone to believing paranoid fantasies and conspiracy theories, do we really want her deciding what Texas kids are supposed to be reading in their textbooks? And also, I just like giving right-wingers a hard time.

UPDATE: From comments, blane provides with a link to the original article. It's been scrubbed from the "Christian" Worldview Network's website, but if you'd like to see what all the fuss is about, click here. 

Wrong, Again

Christopher Hitchens, opining that much of the euphoria over Obama's victory was merely an outpouring of "white guilt."To which my response is: you sir, are a jackass. Hitchens is proof that while you may not be able to build a career on knee-jerk contrarianism, it can permit you to extend an otherwise credible career far beyond viability and profitability. 

Dead

The NY Times, on the aformentioned death of the "southern strategy":

“I think that’s absolutely over,” said Thomas Schaller, a political scientist who argued prophetically that the Democrats could win national elections without the South.

The Republicans, meanwhile, have “become a Southernized party,” said Mr. Schaller, who teaches at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. “They have completely marginalized themselves to a mostly regional party,” he said, pointing out that nearly half of the current Republican House delegation is now Southern.

Merle Black, an expert on the region’s politics at Emory University in Atlanta, said the Republican Party went too far in appealing to the South, alienating voters elsewhere.

“They’ve maxed out on the South,” he said, which has “limited their appeal in the rest of the country.”

Of course one could argue that this election was a unique event, that disgust with the Republican party and the popularity of Barack Obama in general combined to dramatically reduce the impact of southern whites. But as the article mentions, demographic changes split North Carolina and Virginia away from the South, reducing the electoral value of the South as a whole, and whites in other parts of the country voted for Obama in greater numbers. I do think the race factor is over-played to some extent. It's present (there's really no arguing that it's a factor when Kerry-a less popular figure generally-won more votes than Obama among southern whites) but we should recall that Republicans went beyond race to a relying generally on class, painting Democratic candidates as out-of-touch and effete elitists. Of course this stereotyping was used to appeal to poorer and less educated whites throughout the country; we focus on the South mostly because the appeals to race and class have been most effective there, and because the South has provided a safe and reliable base of electoral votes for Republican candidates. What this election has demonstrated is that appeals to race and class are no longer effective among enough whites outside of the South to make up for the voters that they either turn off or have no effect on, even accounting for the uniqueness of this election. 

This is a welcome development for Democrats, who will no longer feel the need to nominate southern candidates in an effort to manage losses in the South. This is a troubling development for the Republican party, which now must either face moderating its message to appeal to more voters outside of the south. Overall this a supremely positive for our nation, whose national politics will not be dominated by a disproportionate focus on the poorest, most under-educated, provincial and unsophisticated white people in the country. With the death of the effectiveness of either overt or covert appeals to race, our nation can finally move beyond the racial politics that has characterized national elections from the sixties on. 

What then is the future of the South in national politics? If at one time the value of southern whites was over-valued, it may now be that they are under-valued. If Democrats don't even need to consider the deep south in mapping their electoral strategies, their concerns won't be addressed. Even if they elect reliably conservative Republicans and Democrats to Congress in the future, that influence can be outweighed by greater numbers of members from states in New England, the Midwest and the West (as is the case now thanks to this election.) What then is the future of the South? I'm not at all prepared to answer that question, but I'm sure I'm not the only one pondering it.

UPDATE: Naturally, other bloggers are responding to this article with their opinions. I don't quite understand the reaction of Clay Risen at TNR, who says the south isn't waning so much as it's "fissuring":

Across the “Deep South”—South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and northern Louisiana, what the rest of the country talks about when it talks about the South—the map is almost entirely blue. Pretty much all of Texas is blue, too. That means that Obama, even if he didn’t win these states, still did better than Kerry. Instead, the red splotches center in eastern Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and southern Louisiana; northern Alabama is pretty red as well. (Interestingly, these are places where Democrats tend to do well, historically, on the local and state level.)

What this all points to is not a waning South, but a fissured and rapidly changing one.

To which I respond with a "yeah, but you're missing the point." No, the "South" has never been a unified bloc of white racists. It's just that appeals to the racism and class consciousness of whites was an integral party of the Republican strategy to secure the electoral votes of the deep South, which served as reliable backbone for Republican candidates and left them needing to concentrate solely on states in the midwest and the West (and Florida, which doesn't really count as the South.) But yes, we can acknowledge that the South itself is changing; for example, Dallas County in North Texas (generally an area that historically has more in common with the deep south than say, southern Texas) is now blue, safely and securely. Yes, that undermines to some extent the "unity" of Texas as a safe Republican state, but not by that much; the rest of East Texas voted for McCain in a greater percentage than they did Bush. So Texas was secure for McCain, just as was the rest of the deep South minus areas where there have been shifts in demographics like Virginia, or North Carolina. It simply doesn't matter that more urbanites, more African-Americans and more Hispanics voted for Obama in these states this year than in years past, because the tilt of the state was decided by the white voters that Republicans make overt appeals to. What matters is that other parts of the country are changing (like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, etc.) so much so that appeals to the whites in these states no longer work; when you can "only" win states outside of the deep South and still easily win the presidency then yes, the South is marginalized. I don't see how this isn't a fair conclusion. It's true there is some over-simplication in the article; "deep South" is really code for "white voters in the South." And I hardly think that we should conclude that the South on longer has any role in presidential races. Rather, the South's prominence in deciding who Democratic candidates will be and what strategy they will run on, is now much diminished. I think that's a fair conclusion. 

UPDATE: Stuart Rothenberg, discussing whether this election was a "realignment", touches on the issue of the white voter:

If demographics are indeed destiny, then the 2008 national exit poll at the very least raises questions about where the GOP goes from here.

For the first time ever, whites constituted less than 75 percent of the electorate, a considerable problem for the Republican Party given its historical problems attracting minorities. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) drew just 55 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, but Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) drew 67 percent of it four years later — a remarkable showing considering that many of those voters preferred Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in the Democratic contest and supposedly were resistant to voting for a black candidate.

It's fair to say that changing demographics both in and outside of the deep South have operated to reduce the influence of white voters in the South.

Change I Can Believe In

I don't think I could overstate how elated and overjoyed I am that Barack Obama won this presidential election, and unlike the last couple of times, our new President-elect won it definitively and decisively. I am of course a proud American to know my country could overcome the racial hurdles of our past. But the most important thing is that we will have a new Democratic President of the United States who will reverse the policies of the Bush administration and chart a more progressive course for our nation and its people. There to help him will be robust Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress.

It took one wild election to get here, but for me, this is a perfect cap on my own political awakening.

I have not always been as political as I am now. My father votes and likes to discuss politics with me, but it was never a family occasion as it is for some. I thought President Clinton did a good job and was treated shamefully by Republicans. I was disappointed when Al Gore "lost" in 2000. But politics wasn't a big part of my life.

Needless to say, it wasn't until I became disturbed by the actions of the Bush administration that changed. When I saw how they were using 9/11 to undermine the Constitution, ramrod conservative domestic legislation through Congress, and get Americans on board with an unwise war in Iraq, I started informing myself as much as I could. This was a terrible time though for political dissent. My then-minority views were quickly labeled "unpatriotic" or "naive" when anyone else spoke out, so it didn't exactly encourage me to become active. As this was around the time when the Internet became more and more useful for finding like-minded people, I (like Xanthippas and Nat-Wu) did find refuge with MoveOn.org, DailyKos, etc. and eventually started writing my own blogs and newspaper articles.

But outside of bitching on forums, there wasn't much else for us to do. Except for Al Gore, most high-profile Democrats at the time were letting us down by capitulating to President Bush on things like the Patriot Act, and worst of all, the Iraq war.

Then came Howard Dean, a little known governor from Vermont who called out these Democrats for supporting the war, tax cuts for the rich, No Child Left Behind, etc. and still wanting our support. Most importantly, his campaign used the Internet as a new resource to build a grassroots effort. It allowed supporters like me to be connected and allowed him to break fundraising records. And it laid the groundwork for Barack Obama to come along later and completely annihilate the Republican advantage in fundraising and GOTV this year.

Of course, Dean was viciously attacked by the other candidates and the media. He lost Iowa and New Hampshire (and every other state except for Vermont after he got out!) and it became clear he'd lose the nomination to John Kerry. But Dean had brought me into the Democratic Party and wholeheartedly supported the ticket given the alternative of four more years of Bush.

That fall, I joined the College Democrats group at UNT to get more involved. Of course, Bush won reelection... but as depressed as were initially, we came to be more determined and I think Democrats/progressives across the nation felt the same way. Howard Dean was elected as the new chairman of the DNC, promising to implement a 50-state strategy to finally make Democrats competitive in every state and region. This plan, along with a collective call for getting their shit together, helped Democrats win a great victory just 2 years later and take back the Congress from Republicans.

Then, all eyes turned to the next presidential race.

Like most Americans, I had never heard of Barack Obama prior to his keynote address at the Democratic convention in 2004. But like many Americans, I had a feeling I was witnessing a future political leader's birth on the national scene. His speech encapsulated why Americans should vote for Democrats better than any other case made that year (especially any made by the Kerry/Edwards team). But more than that, it encapsulated the values that make Americans feel American. You know someone's got something special when you're a state senator and people are talking about you being president one day after just one speech.

Thankfully, it didn't turn out to be a fluke. Obama campaigned a great deal for Democratic candidates for the midterms, bringing out the largest crowds and subsequently, bringing the house down (prior this year, I had the fortunate pleasure of hearing both him and Joe Biden speak at a rally in Dallas in 2005). He shocked and excited the political world when he announced his candidacy for president after Democrats took control of Congress. Most people had assumed he should wait until he had more experience, but he obviously sensed now was his time. He would have no greater window to offer up the unique opportunity his candidacy could bring.

I hesitated little in backing Obama during the presidential race. He was a charismatic politician who could bring independents and new voters into the party, he had forcefully and intelligently opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and showed similar judgment on other issues, and most importantly, after 8 years of one of the most divisive presidents in history, we didn't just need a Democrat - we needed someone who could truly play the role of a uniter.

Over the course of the primary season, he expanded on the Dean model and built up a strong organization that triumphed over his Democratic rivals. I never worked harder than when I was a precinct captain for his effort during the Texas primary/caucus. And I've never given more money than I did during both the primary and general election campaigns! But it was all worth it to be a part of this movement.

As we saw just this past Tuesday, Barack Obama ran one of the greatest and most disciplined campaigns in history and it carried him to great victory. His election reaffirmed to many in this country and around the world of what America and Americans can aspire to. It has reaffirmed my faith in the political process and that I have not chosen a frivolous path for myself these last few years. If anything, it has made me more excited about the possibilities of the future.

I can't wait to see what happens next.

Obamaha

The Omaha-World Herald is calling that Nebraska electoral vote (from its Omaha-based second Congressional district) for Barack Obama! First time a Dem has won there since LBJ.

This increases his margin to 365-162. Missouri is still up in the air, but McCain is currently ahead.

<p><strong>><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/'>Electoral College Prediction Map</a></strong> - Predict the winner of the general election. Use the map to experiment with winning combinations of states. Save your prediction and send it to friends.</p>

UPDATE: Even better, both the AP and CNN also have Obama now standing at 53% of the popular vote (this is the highest in 20 years). He got 65 million votes, beating McCain by nearly 8 million.

More good news for Obama

North Carolina is called for Obama and Rahm Emanuel has officially accepted the Chief of Staff position.

UPDATE: Nebraska's second district may also yield an extra electoral vote for him!

UPDATE II: The transition site has gone live.

UPDATE III: (Xanthippas) And on that site, you can apply for a job with the Obama administration! Given that these jobs are senior positions filled by political appointees you're not likely to get picked if your most note-worthy accomplishment is Manager-of-the-Month at Wendy's (or running a political blog, for that matter.) But I say what the hell; fill the form out and see what happens. 

Divided Campaign

Going into the weeks before the election, the McCain campaign was apparently bitterly divided over Sarah Palin:

Ms. Palin, who laughingly told the prankster that she could be president “maybe in eight years,” was the catalyst for a civil war between her campaign and Mr. McCain’s that raged from mid-September up until moments before Mr. McCain’s concession speech on Tuesday night. By then, Ms. Palin was in only infrequent contact with Mr. McCain, top advisers said.

“I think it was a difficult relationship,” said one top McCain campaign official, who, like almost all others interviewed, asked to remain anonymous. “McCain talked to her occasionally.”

But Mr. McCain’s advisers also described him as admiring of Ms. Palin’s political skills. He was aware of the infighting, they said, but it is unclear how much he was inclined or able to stop it.

The disputes between the campaigns centered in large part on the Republican National Committee’s $150,000 wardrobe for Ms. Palin and her family, but also on what McCain advisers considered Ms. Palin’s lack of preparation for her disastrous interview with Katie Couric of CBS News and her refusal to take advice from Mr. McCain’s campaign.

But behind those episodes may be a greater subtext: anger within the McCain camp that Ms. Palin harbored political ambitions beyond 2008.

As late as Tuesday night, a McCain adviser said, Ms. Palin was pushing to deliver her own speech just before Mr. McCain’s concession speech, even though vice-presidential nominees do not traditionally speak on election night. But Ms. Palin met up with Mr. McCain with text in hand. She was told no by Mark Salter, one of Mr. McCain’s closest advisers, and Steve Schmidt, Mr. McCain’s top strategist.

On Wednesday, two top McCain campaign advisers said that the clothing purchases for Ms. Palin and her family were a particular source of outrage for them. As they portrayed it, Ms. Palin had been advised by Nicolle Wallace, a senior McCain aide, that she should buy three new suits for the Republican National Convention in St. Paul in September and three additional suits for the fall campaign. The budget for the clothes was anticipated to be from $20,000 to $25,000, the officials said.

Instead, in a public relations debacle undermining Ms. Palin’s image as an everywoman “hockey mom,” bills came in to the Republican National Committee for about $150,000, including charges of $75,062 at Neiman Marcus and $49,425 at Saks Fifth Avenue. The bills included clothing for Ms. Palin’s family and purchases of shoes, luggage and jewelry, the advisers said.

The advisers described the McCain campaign as incredulous about the shopping spree and said Republican National Committee lawyers were likely to go to Alaska to conduct an inventory and try to account for all that was spent.

Of course, as the article says, some of this back-stabbing is natural after a failed campaign, as each of the advisors tries to avoid being stuck with the legacy of a loss. But I'd say there's been enough anonymous quotes and rumors in the news to support the idea that there was at least some amount of internal fighting going on that's greater than what we'd witness in a typically healthy campaign. I know some lefty bloggers will link to this story just to go "ha ha" or marvel at the ineptitude of the McCain campaign, but I also think these stories reveal something about McCain as a leader. Without a doubt Palin had a highly negative effect on the ticket that probably outweighed the inspiration she provided to the Republican base (at least if polls of people's opinions of her are to be believed.) But I think to some extent some people were also turned off by these stories of infighting, as they rightly wondered exactly what sort of leader permits himself to be surrounded by people who he can't quite seem to control and who are apparently engaged in shameless self-promotion. In other words, the Palin pick wasn't merely reflective of McCain's ideas on policy and the importance of policy itself (or lack of importance, I should say.) And it also doesn't merely indicate McCain's willingness to make hasty and poorly thought out decisions. Beyond that, it says something about his inability to manage the people around him. And surely there were some people thinking, haven't we seen enough of that already?

UPDATE: And in contrast, Obama's campaign provides glimpses of his leadership ability:

For a candidate who began as a novice on the national stage, Obama proved remarkably steady, anchored and unruffled. Those personal attributes, if they are indicative of presidential character, could provide the ballast that any administration needs when turbulence hits -- as it did at various times during the campaign. His temperament as a candidate suggests a president not given to highs and lows, and his campaign foreshadows a White House more orderly than those of the two most recent Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

When others doubted his candidacy in the summer and fall of 2007, Obama stayed true to the course he and his advisers had set at the start of the campaign. When he suffered setbacks at the hands of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in this year's primaries, he made readjustments without rancor and kept moving forward. When the financial markets cratered in September, and Sen. John McCain scurried in different directions in response, the measured reaction by Obama and his campaign helped persuade doubters about his fitness to be president.

"They reacted very well under those circumstances, almost a model presidential candidate reaction, compared to McCain, who reacted as a maverick senator," said political scientist and presidential scholar Charles O. Jones.

Just as some voters were put-off by the erratic nature and questionable leadership of McCain, they were put at ease by the calm, cool and collected leadership of Obama. It's impossible to say with any certainty how Obama will govern as President, but what we've seen so far is very, very reassuring.

Conan the Barbarian, Democratic Strategist

On the 2008 elections:

Mongol General: Conan! What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.

On those predictions...

We are still waiting on some results, but I can review a few of my predictions.

-A blowout! Obama did better than my electoral map and especially in my estimate of the popular vote. It looks like he has 364 electoral votes with his upset in Indiana (who would have thought that would turn but not Missouri, which no presidential race winner has won without but once in the last century?). That is the biggest electoral college victory since Bill Clinton in 1996. He won in every region by picking up all the Kerry states (by larger margins), leveling McCain in Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada, finally winning Ohio and Florida for the Dems, and winning states Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina which haven't been won by a Dem since LBJ or Carter. He also got a lot closer in the states that went for McCain than Kerry did four years ago. So much for McCain's Pennsylvania firewall!

Even better, Obama trounced McCain by six points in the popular vote - 52%-46%. No Democrat has won over 50% of the vote since LBJ. Voter turnout was even higher than in 2004 (when both Bush and Kerry got more votes than any before them) and the vote totals show far have Obama winning more votes than George Bush. As of the current counting, McCain didn't get as many votes as either Bush or Kerry.

78% of all counties in the U.S. voted more Democratic from 2004 and only 22% voted more Republican. Obama won or tied in all age groups save for over 65. He won huge majorities of not just African Americans, but Latinos and other minorities. He got a majority of the female vote and a plurality of the male vote. Ladies and gentlemen, this was a realignment.

-I nailed the gubernatorial races at least. We held Washington (easily) and North Carolina, and we picked up Missouri.

-While the abortion bans failed, it looks like all the gay marriage bans will pass, including in California. Ironically, the increase of African American turnout for Obama helped pass Prop 8 since they are more socially conservative.

-Obama and Noriega only lost by 11-12 points which isn't great, but isn't as bad as we are used to. It was business as usual in the rest of the statewide and Congressional races though (we sadly lost Lampson). Denton County where I live was particularly terrible, with low turnout and two-thirds of Election Day voters being Republicans.

We did, however, pick up two state Senate seats (well, Chris Bell will go into a runoff). The Texas House may be tied depending on one race still to be decided... Democrats expanded their one-party control of other state legislatures from 23 states to 27 states.

-We don't have the complete picture on the House and Senate races, but it looks like we won't do as well as we thought we might (however, it's still historic to have two back-to-back waves). Dems will only pick up about half of what was expected in the House, but either way, we have a solid majority. The Senate races were a bit of a disappointment. We won 5 handily, but we are behind in AK, GA (though it is going to a runoff), OR (where Dem precincts are left), and MN (there will be a mandated recount). Glad we made Kentucky close though and gave McConnell a scare. Oh, and Joe Lieberman will soon lose his committee chairmanship.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with Alaska? They (probably) re-elected Ted Stevens (though he may be expelled by the Senate), convicted of bribery, and Don Young. Oh well, what should I expect from the state that gave us Sarah Palin and Mike Gravel?

So we won't get 60. But there's no guarantee all Dems will vote together every single time and moderate Republicans sometimes vote with us anyway.

But no matter what else happens, BARACK OBAMA WON!!!!!!!!!!!

Change T.O. Can Believe In

 Cowboys WR Terrell Owens on the election, with a message that I'm pretty sure all of us, left and right, can get behind:

"Very emotional and historical moment. There was a change and hopefully that can trickle on down to our season."

On the odds that the Cowboys will make the playoffs, I propose adopting the Obama catchphrase "Yes we can!" 

Hometown Hero

In Kenya, homeland of Barack Obama Sr., they celebrate the election of his son to the highest office in America. 

No Fix

Can I just say that I'm already beginning to feel the pangs of election-watching withdrawal? Since late last year I've read campaign coverage every single day, written untold thousands of words in hundreds of blog posts, and steadily increased the amount of time I spend reading political news to an astonishingly large percentage of the time I spend awake in a day. And now just like that, it's over?

Ah, but not quite! Thankfully Jim Martin will go up against Saxby Chambliss in Georgia next month, and I have a feeling I will find quite a bit to say about it between now and then. 

Obama's Keys to Victory

What were the keys to Obama's victory last night? I have my ideas. Here they are (though not in order of importance because honestly, I couldn't say which had more impact than others, at least not enough to rank them):

• The economy: Obama experienced some "luck" in this regard. What was horrendous for us was great for his campaign, as the rapid acceleration of the global financial meltdown absolutely swamped the McCain campaign. McCain, already percieved as weaker on the economy than matters of national security and foreign policy, was at a loss for what to do when the crisis broke. In what is probably his second greatest gambit after picking Palin for VP, McCain rushed back to D.C., only to appear mostly irrelevant to the bailout process. Instead of undoing Obama's natural advantage as a Democrat on the economy, McCain only damaged his own standing. 

• George Bush and the GOP: Republicans are quick to spin this election as a referendum on eight years of George Bush. The election wasn't entirely about Republican ineptitude, but any Republican candidate was going to start out behind thanks to the massive shift in the public mood against the GOP. It only hurt McCain that he was forced to play to the right-wing base in order to shore up support for his candidacy; in doing so, he only confirmed to many voters that he wouldn't be substantially different from what they'd already seen for eight years.

• The Death of the "Southern Strategy": It's hard to say with any confidence what this election means to the electorate as a whole, except in one sense; it's safe to say that the "southern strategy", the practice of pandering to racist voters in the South that has been carried out by every Republican Presidential campaign since Nixon, is dying if not already dead. The Republican party played this strategy to the hilt. Not only did Republican campaigns wink and nod to the racists in their party, they came to identify the white, working-class voter (who just so happens to be racist, or at least deeply suspicious of minorities) as the "ultimate American" voter and perpetuated a culture war that attempted to define their supporters as "real" Americans and Democrats as latte-sipping "elitists." But the Republican party was trapped by its own game, forced to nominate an unqualified governor for Vice President because the base of the party, now comprised of these white voters, could only relate to someone like themselves; anti-intellectual, under-educated, confidently ignorant, overtly religious, and white. Unfortunately, time and demographics have caught up to the Republican party. Voters comfortable with these tactics now tend to reside largely in the south and the plains states; what only two years ago was a region that was ceded in advance by Democrats, is now overnight the only safe region that Republicans can count on. If the Republican party continues to identify itself as primarily the party of these voters and continues to value the votes of it's poorer whites above other groups of voters, it will become at best a regional party incapable of fashioning a coalition sufficient to win national election.

• Sarah Palin: Speaking of playing to the base...McCain's greatest gambit was his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. The move was a blatant pandering to the right-wing base of the Republican party and although it energized the party faithful, it turned off swing voters and right-leaning Dems in droves. The McCain campaign sensed-probably rightly-that a safe, conservative campaign wouldn't be enough against Obama, and they had a serious enthusiasm gap to deal with. Unfortunately for them, the enthusiasm Sarah Palin generated could not hope to make up for the negative effect it had on the McCain campaign as a whole.

• The McCain campaign: Often, it appears that McCain's worst enemy was himself, or at least, his campaign advisors. McCain's advisors could never quite decide what they wanted to sell to the public. Part of the problem was they could never quite settle on what issue would damage Obama the most, largely because no attacks that they mounted gained any traction (for example Iraq, which was largely negated as an issue in the campaign.) At the same time, those attacks failed to gain traction in part because the campaign never gave them time to work. The Bush campaign in '04 settled on one strategy; identify Kerry's weaknesses and attack them relentlessly from beginning to end. But the McCain campaign could never quite figure out what they wanted people to like least about Obama; his associations, his ideology, his lack of experience, his anti-American leanings, etc., etc. Indeed it was a laundry list of things voters were supposed to reject, but the only thing McCain apparently asked them to embrace was his "experience." It wasn't enough. The McCain campaign was also extremely undisciplined. In the weeks leading up to the election we heard McCain's advisors make pronouncements about how they couldn't win if the election was about the economy as well as throw each other and Palin under the bus in anonymous quotes in major news articles. None of this gave Americans the impression that the McCain campaign had any idea what if was doing, and I think in large part Americans attributed this failing to McCain himself; his inability to pick quality advisors reflected on his judgment. That contrasts with....

• The Obama Campaign: It is generally agreed that Obama and his advisors ran a nearly flawless campaign. There were no serious gaffes, crises were dispatched hastily, advisors who appeared in the media were disciplined and on message, the grassroots organization was light-years beyond anything we've seen to this point, the 50-state strategy was bold and effective, and the message to the public was short, memorable and convincing. Obama credited his two most senior advisors in his speech last night, David Axelrod and David Plouffe, and he was right to do so; the two men engineered the kind of campaign that Joe Trippi could only dream about. The Obama campaign was essentially the anti-Rove campaign; instead of the 50+1 approach, Obama's campaign fought for votes in every state of the union. The landslide victory, and the political implications thereof (a mandate far beyond anything Rove ever hoped for) are the direct result. Of course, it would be criminal to overlook the literally millions of people who contributed or volunteered on Obama's behalf. The Obama campaign may have known exactly how to harness that power and enthusiasm, but it was these volunteers, many young, some old, all fired up for Obama, that delivered the votes to make this victory a landslide. 

• Barack Obama: Of coure, Americans did not turn out to vote for Obama's campaign; they turned out to vote for Obama. They are not likely to regret their choice. Obama demonstrated through the two-year long campaign that he was cool, level-headed, possessed of great equanimity, poised, well-spoken, intelligent and thoughtful. The reason many of the McCain campaigns attacks failed to work against Obama is because each time Obama appeared in the public eye, he demonstrated attributes in opposition to the ones McCain tried to paint him with. At no time was this more evident than in the flap over Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama proved to America that he was a different kind of politician when he turned the crisis, which threatened to derail his campaign, into an opportunity to confront the issue of race head-on in one of the most masterful political speeches of the modern era. In his speech Obama was direct, considered, and sincere. He treated the public as adults who could handle a frank discussion about race from a national figure, and he was not wrong. America has rewarded him in turn.

And so those are my thoughts. But I'm sure there are many things I'm leaving out. Your comments are welcome.

What now?

Nat-Wu here, and I thought I'd offer my thoughts on what happened last night and what's going to happen from today on. You've read enough about the facts, and there's no way I can compete with the news for coverage of people's reactions, but I'll contribute what little I have to the story. Today, a lot of people are ecstatic about Obama's victory, as well they should be. As you will read in story after story, people are calling this the culmination of Martin Luther King Jr's dream. I don't think even he could foresee a day when white and black children would play together in a US governed by a black President. Truly we are living in a special time.

That being said, I don't want to hear white conservatives going around saying, "See, we're not racists!" when the polls show that race is a major reason a lot of people didn't vote for Obama. It didn't cost him the win, however, and that's what's important.

The question now is, how do we move forward? Even if Democrats pull out the four contested senate races, it doesn't mean a new slate of progressive legislation is going to roll out and make gay marriage legal, turn America socialist or any of that nonsense. Obama is going to have to work with the Senate to get measures passed to address our immediate issues. Despite bounces in the stock market, the economy is still collapsing. Despite being in Iraq for 5 years, we've accomplished nothing except to put off the start of hostilities between sides, and after being in Afghanistan for nearly 7 years, we haven't caught Osama Bin Laden. Don't take this the wrong way, for once I'm not saying it's Bush's fault because at this point it truly doesn't matter. These are the problems Obama and his new Senate majority must solve. And it will not be easy, and some of it may not work. But we must continue the push to change America for the better.

Those of us who supported Obama and the Democrats now have a duty. We have a responsibility, both to the Democratic Party and to all the people of America, to make sure that our elected leaders walk a truer path than ever before. Our Democratic government must make an effort to divorce themselves from political backbiting to work together for the common good. My hope is that by proving that a progressive agenda does better for all Americans than a conservative one, we can win over more of the doubters. Right now we have people telling us that America is going to turn Socialist (which, if they were being rational, is ridiculous). We heard people saying that Obama was going to take all the guns away, etc, etc. Now I don't feel the need to reach out to people who insist Obama can't be President because he wasn't born in the US or that he's secretly a Muslim. If they're irrationally afraid, you can't reassure them. But if they're rationally afraid, you can. And we have to carry forward our progressive agenda while making sure they understand that we're doing this for them too. Their side says things like "America, love it or leave it!" We don't do that. I hope that my fellow progressives understand that Obama won on a message of hope and change for the better for all of us. Yes, Republicans, we will drag you into a new, more prosperous, more peaceful, and more free America even if it has to be kicking and screaming. And in a decade, I hope you learn to appreciate it.

First Thoughts on the Election

It's difficult to sum up the various thoughts that pass through the brain while contemplating Obama's historic victory. There are countless stories about African-Americans old enough to remember not being able to vote, casting their vote for the first African-American president in our nation's history. But as I was explaining to my wife last night, even I thought as recently as a couple of years ago that a black president was years down the road. That is has happened so soon, to the delight and surprise of many of us, is a testament to the power of Obama to appeal to ALL Americans, and not simply those who'd be most excited by the thought of his Presidency.

As to Obama's landslide...even though we'd been prepared by the polls for days (if not weeks) in advance, it was still quite a surprise to see the race end so quickly. As Democrats we are naturally suspicious of a commanding lead, and all Americans had grown sadly accustomed to bitterly divided elections thanks to 2000 and 2004. The question now arises, what does this mean? Much will be said about the redrawing of the electoral landscape, but I think it's too early yet to know the true impact of the race. Clearly, something has shifted in American politics; no one wins an election to so great a degree simply be being NOT a Republican (Kerry tried that already.) But to what extent is the shift due to characteristics of this election, and to what extent is it due to fundamental changes in the American electorate? It's hard to say.

Another consideration is that of a "mandate"; if Bush's 51% of the popular vote in 2004 was a "mandate" than Obama's 6% share is a charge to remake the nation from the ground up. Of course, Bush's mandate was just silly spin (spin that the Bush administration nonetheless bought into); there was no real mandate, just an opportunity to govern as if they had won broad approval, thanks to lenient Republicans in Congress and a judiciary that played catch-up to their unconstitutional activities. So what then does difference of seven million voters, out of three hundred million Americans, really mean? Probably both more and less than we make of it. But I think that, regardless of the scale of the victory, Obama is far too canny to govern as if the entire nation were now blue. For one, the lesson of Bush's failings is recent and stark and aptly demonstrated by last night's outcome. For two, I think Obama is a wiser, more thoughtful and contemplative leader than Bush could ever hope to be, and he will attempt to govern as a uniter for practical and pragmatic reasons, both for the future of the Democratic Party and the nation. At least though, the massive success of the Democrats appears to have undermined the talking points of pundits who think that Dems can win only by appealing to the center and the center-right.

As to the other side of the aisle...I thought McCain's concession speech was very gracious. It's unfortunate that his campaign was not. Nonetheless, he did the right thing. There are many right-wing voters who believe that America will now imminently turn socialist, that Barack Obama will fill his cabinet with people "who blow things up" (seriously, that's what one Dallas McCain voter said on the radio this morning) and who are genuinely afraid of the future. Most of them will be dragged into the Twenty-First century kicking and screaming, but McCain's words will soothe the transition for some of them.

There will be more thoughts to follow, as the implications of this election become apparent. For now though, it is truly remarkable to bask in the awe that comes from having lived at a pivotal moment in history and having witnessed historic change first-hand. And frankly, it's just flat out fun to win.

Obama in the Papers

A roundup of headlines on the Obama victory:

NY Times: "Obama: President-Elect Calls Outcome a Defining Moment"

Washington Post: "Change has Come"

LA Times: "Obama Wins"

Boston Tribune: "Voters Embrace Change, Barack Obama"

CNN: "U.S. Chooses Change"

McClatchy: "Obama Makes History, Wins Presidency"


MSNBC: "How He Did It"

Fox News: "As He Savors Historic Victory, Obama Also Faces A WORLD OF TROUBLE" (and Fox News will be the first to tell you about all of it)

Dallas News: "Obama Will Be Tested"

Houston Chronicle: "First Look at Obama Staff May Be Today"

Washington Times: "Obama Looks Ahead to Shape Cabinet"

Overseas:

The Guardian: "President Obama: Change has Come"

BBC: "A Historic Moment"

Le Monde (France): "Obama's Victory Ushers in a New American Dream"

El Pais (Spain): "The Change Has Come"

Bild-Zeitung (Germany): "Obama Superstar: Why is He a Hero to the Whole World?"

Calling It

This blogger is calling it for the night. It's been three hours since the networks called it for Obama (10:00pm CST) and since then I swear the only thing I've done is flitter from one site to the next trying to get U.S. House totals, Texas race totals, and local Dallas and Tarrant County election totals. But you dear reader know what I know, as it's all here on the blog somewhere (see the links on the upper right.)

Clearly, it has been a historic night. It's simply incredible that Americans have elected their first African-American President, but it bears reminding that Obama wasn't elected because he's black; he was elected because a majority of Americans trust him with the future of this nation. They will not be proven wrong in their trust.

Democrats have picked up at least five seats in the Senate, and are likely to take out Stevens as well (though it's too early to say for sure.) They probably won't get Chambliss though. Too bad.

Democrats will pick up a few more seats in the House. Nothing stunning, but adding to the comfortable margin they already enjoy.

In Texas...well, Texas is a different story. The purpling of the state will have to wait, as results were decidedly mixed. Gains in the U.S. House were nil, gains in the Texas House were less than hoped for, but Wendy Davis did score an upset against Kim Brimer in the Texas Senate. Things look good for Dallas County Democrats, and less so for Tarrant County Democrats.

And that's where we are at about 1:30 CST. We'll know more in the morning, and expect that my co-bloggers and I will have much more to say about this incredible night tomorrow and in the coming days. Good night folks.

Barack Obama Acceptance Speech

Barack Obama is now giving his acceptance speech before an amazing throng of supporters in Grant Park, Chicago. You can follow his speech live here.

Texas Obama Supporters Celebrate

They have a pretty decent crowd up there in Chicago, but Texans know how to turn out too. Nat-Wu is "embedded" with the Dallas County Democrats at their convention watching party, and sends us these pictures. 







UPDATE: Dallas County Dems watching Obama's acceptance speech.