My Italian Twin

Apparently, I haven't been living my life in New York City. I've actually been living in Florence. Click on this picture to get a better view:

I'm No Terrorism Expert But..., Ctd.

A column in today's Times is a great place to start understanding what happened in Mumbai. It seems that it is about Indian issues, about the clash between traditional religious ideology and the new, business-oriented, cosmopolitan India that it opposes. Mumbai is the commercial center of India, the center of Bollywood filmmaking, a place that attracts international travellers and Indians with dreams of making it big: "Just as cinema is a mass dream of the audience, Mumbai is a mass dream of the peoples of South Asia."

And all this worldliness is anathema to the fundamentalist religious traditions in India, both Muslim and Hindu:

In today's Mumbai... Hindu and Muslim demagogues want the mobs to come out again in the streets, and slaughter one another in the name of God. They want India and Pakistan to go to war. They want Indian Muslims to be expelled. They want India to get out of Kashmir. They want mosques torn down. They want temples bombed.

And now it looks as if the latest terrorists were our neighbors, young men dressed not in Afghan tunics but in blue jeans and designer T-shirts. Being South Asian, they would have grown up watching the painted lady that is Mumbai in the movies: a city of flashy cars and flashier women. A pleasure-loving city, a sensual city. Everything that preachers of every religion thunder against. It is, as a monk of the pacifist Jain religion explained to me, “paap-ni-bhoomi”: the sinful land.

I'm No Terrorism Expert But...

Commentor "Frank" asked me what I thought about the Mumbai attacks because he, " heard you hold some expert knowledge in the field of terrorism.' Right off the bat, let me correct you. I have NO expert knowledge in terrorism. I took one course in the subject at Columbia over the summer. I can tell you what I think, but it's really only half a degree above a lay-person.

First, from the reports I've read, here and here, it's not yet clear who did this. What I think we do know so far is that the attackers were young men, that the targets were the Indian elite and U.S. and British foreigners, that the attacks were dramatic and involved direct action by terrorists rather than timed explosives as in previous attacks, that they were fairly sophisticated in their planning, that a little known group, Deccan Mujahadeen, has claimed responsibility, though this group may not exist. The Indian Prime Minister has implied that Pakistan is linked to the attack and this may be true. The issue of Kashmir is a big one for India and Pakistan -- apparently Pakistani intelligence runs an organization named Lashkar-e-Taiba associated with Kashmir and maybe they helped plan this attack, though this group has denied it.

This is what occurs to me: Making the target the commercial capital of India, elites and foreigners, and making it such a big and sophisticated attack, using a direct attack instead of bombs, these are all strategic choices aimed at escalating the degree of notoriety and getting international media attention. Modern terrorism is pretty much defined by the use of modern media, which multiplies the effects of limited actual violence to make a small event into a really big one. Why do these militants want the attention? Maybe it's a show of force and makes militants get taken more seriously; maybe it ups the profile of the issues involved like India's growing economic power, it's elite classes, India perhaps becoming "owned" by foreigners (I'm just guessing here); maybe it is really about internal politics -- just anger filled Muslims saying, "no one is safe, not even the elites; maybe it's an attempt to globalize a local grievance by Indian Islamic militants playing to a global Muslim audience. The fact that U.S. and British citizens were taken hostage is interesting since these are the two main countries involved in Iraq. Maybe this is a way for Indian Muslims to exploit the Iraq War, getting their local situation noticed by a global Muslim community angry over Iraq.

Also, commentor Frank seems confused by the fact that the attacks were not suicide attacks. Well, yes, many attacks throughout the world are suicide attacks, but many are not -- the Madrid and London train bombings weren't, for example. There could be many reasons why they're not: greater possible damage; a longer event -- and longer media coverage -- as hostages are taken and held for days; the particular character of a group which rejects suicide terrorism, perhaps. There are many possible reasons.

Transformational Change

In my previous post I mentioned some of the big, ambitious changes I thought Obama might make. Here is a little information on what I think these new policies might look like. It's late, so for now I'm just going to put up the quotes without commentary.

First, I said he would re-orient our national security towards global issues. In a New Yorker from October, Obama and McCain's foreign policies were contrasted. It discusses a group of foreign-policy Democrats who call themselves The Phoenix Initiative. Among them was Susan Rice, being considered for a top spot in the new administration. They wrote a report about a new vision for U.S. foreign policy:

“This report,” Rice writes in her preface, “breaks away from such traditional concepts as containment, engagement, and enlargement and rejects standard dichotomies of realist power politics versus liberal idealism.” It “offers bold and genuinely new thinking about America’s role.” The report lists five top “strategic priorities” for the United States. The first three are issues that governments, or even international organizations, can’t handle on their own: counterterrorism, nuclear proliferation, and, taken together, climate change and oil dependence. The other two are regional: the Middle East and East Asia. The report barely mentions great-power diplomacy, the traditional core concept of statecraft. It is not just post-Cold War but post-war on terror and, arguably, post-American hegemony. (It makes a point of describing the war in Iraq as a bad idea, rather than as a good idea poorly executed.) It speaks of “interconnectedness” and “diffuse power.” It isn’t dovish or sanguine, exactly—those top three strategic priorities are all threats—but it definitely does not envision American military power, or even power combined with diplomacy, as the only effective tool of foreign-policymaking.

Well before the Phoenix Initiative’s report came out, Obama was using similar themes in his speeches.

I also mentioned that Obama would put energy policy at the center of everything. I got this by reading an interview he gave to Joe Klein at Time Magazine. It's long and very interesting, but the key part (or "money quote" in blog terminology) is here:

The biggest problem with our energy policy has been to lurch from crisis to trance. And what we need is a sustained, serious effort. Now, I actually think the biggest opportunity right now is not just gas prices at the pump but the fact that the engine for economic growth for the last 20 years is not going to be there for the next 20, and that was consumer spending. I mean, basically, we turbo-charged this economy based on cheap credit. Whatever else we think is going to happen over the next certainly 5 years, one thing we know, the days of easy credit are going to be over because there is just too much de-leveraging taking place, too much debt both at the government level, corporate level and consumer level. And what that means is that just from a purely economic perspective, finding the new driver of our economy is going to be critical. There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy.

I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it's creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they're contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That's just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.

For us to say we are just going to completely revamp how we use energy in a way that deals with climate change, deals with national security and drives our economy, that's going to be my number one priority when I get into office, assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation.

What Does "Change" Mean?

So last night I was talking with a friend about the Obama transition. He was surprised when I told him that I liked the pragmatism and results-oriented nature of his appointments so far. We started talking about Obama's campaign slogan of "change" and I talked about how it was always over-blown and even called it "propaganda". But, I wasn't thinking at all when I said that and since then I've been thinking about what that slogan actually meant. So here goes.

I think the slogan is accurate. First, on a basic level, the simple act of electing a Democrat, any Democrat, after eight years of Bush constitutes "change": practically any Democrat would enact a least a few policies which would be significantly different from what Bush did. Obama definitely fits that bill even if he were to do a few simple things he promised, like getting us out of Iraq and a middle-class tax cut. So "change" can simply mean, "not Bush" and, to many people, perhaps independents and Republicans that voted for him, it did.

I would say that during the campaign sometimes "change" did come to mean more than what he acutally believed, and people thought that he basically wouldn't act like a politician. The simplistic quality of campaigning did make some people think it was going to be COMPLETELY different if he was president. That we would pull out of Iraq immediately no matter what, that would keep his promise to take public financing, that he would talk only of unity and "post-partisanship", that he would do the town-hall debates with McCain over the summer (I hoped for that). Obama should be faulted for that, but to expect otherwise was always unrealistic. Obama is still a politician, and one known for his caution and pragmatic nature.

As a pragmatist who is not an idealogue he seeks out people who are similar, and who care about getting things done. H wants people who have the ability and experience to navigate the very difficult Washington bureaucracy to enact policy. Yes, these are not fresh faces. But that's a plus. The Obama transition is very aware of not falling into the same pitfalls as the Clinton transition, where fresh faces were installed who ended up causing significant chaos and ineffectiveness at the beginning of the Clinton administration. From as far back as May of 2007, when I read this New Yorker article, I've always believed that Obama believes in evolutionary, not revolutionary, change. So, to me that means he is cautious in his campaign and doesn't take unnecessary risks, and for his administration picks very smart, capable pragmatists. This won't please everyone and doesn't always mean Change: he might move slower on Iraq than some people would like, or not try to enact some big policy goals right away; his possible appointment of John Brennan as head of the CIA is an example of a moderate choice that doesn't represent significant "change" -- John Brennan has been an apologist for torture, rendition and illegal domestic surveillance. It disturbs me very much.

But, while he's cautious, Obama is also a strategic thinker. He sees the big picture and I think is aware of the historical moment we're in. The financial and economic crisis, the success of the surge and new agreement with Iraq to pull out all troops by 2011 have come together to create an opportunity -- a big opportunity, I think. If these things hadn't happened his administration might be less ambitious. But as of now -- and I strenuously want to point out that not much has happened yet, besides appointing people and some policy proposals -- I think he is hoping to make BIG change happen. Rahm Emanuel has indicated that they plan to "throw long and deep" on policy and that "you never want a serious crisis go to waste":



Obama I think is planning to, indeed, "throw long" and...
- Not just pull out of Iraq, but change our foreign policy orientation away from individual states and towards global issues: climate-change, globalization, terrorism.
- Put energy policy at the center of U.S. policy as it relates to the economy, national security and climate change.
- Enact some form of universal health care. simply achieving this would be a dramatic change from what we've always known (and one step closer to.... socialism!!)
- Change the tax code to improve middle class incomes, which have stagnated this decade, and , I think, even since 1975.

While Obama is a pragmatist and is skeptical of revolutions, it doesn't mean that he thinks BIG change is impossible. It's just that he is cautious and careful about how he goes about it. Two examples from his own life are instructive here. First, the decision to run for president. His election is one of the most improbable political events in our history. For him to decide to run was a huge risk in many ways. But he read the winds of history right and he won. Second, his response to the Reverend Wright controversy. He decided to tackle the issue with a nuanced, landmark speech on race instead of something more conventional, something that said this is no big deal, or didn't really get into the issue of race. He gambled and it payed off. Obama is capable of being something other than cautious. He represents change, but also potentialy Change. He can take risks. He takes them when they are a good, strategic decision. I think that kind of moment may have arrived, and I think he is going to take it.

Holder Reassures

Though I am troubled by the more and more certain appointment of John Brennan as head of the CIA I am reassured by the fact that Eric Holder will probably become the Attorney General. Holder seems to have a great record speaking out against executive power, torture, renditions, warrantless eavesdropping and Guantanamo.

Cosmo Brown Changes My Mind

Commenter Cosmo Brown makes some sharp points about my last post and the Team of Rivals concept that's been floating around regarding Obama's cabinet. The concept is being thoughtlessly and uncritically talked about. As Brown notes, the point should be, how will dissent be dealt with between Obama and the cabinet members as well as among the cabinet. Lincoln has been hailed as a political genius for setting up his administration this way, but an op-ed in the Times today calls that seriously into question: what Lincoln did was neither new nor effective. It shows the big pitfalls of having rivals hanging around who have grievances and don't trust their relationships with the president or the rest of the cabinet. On this last point, Thomas Friedman has a great column on how, when it comes to a secretary of state, trust is essential. "When it comes to appointing a secretary of state, you do not want a team of rivals." He points out that the best, most powerful secretaries of the past few decades have been Baker and Kissinger. Any foreign leader who talked to them knew that by talking to them they were talking to the president. Thinking in this light, Clinton as secretary of state seems problematic: It's hard to imagine Obama and Clinton having a trusting relationship. They don't seem to be close, they had a sometimes bitter primary fight, Hillary might let her resentment get the best of her, and then, as always, there's Bill (that man is NEVER going away!)

In addition, she has revealed herself to be, with her health care plan in the early 90s and with her Presidential campaign, to be a terrible manager, breeding mistrust between her and Congress in her health plan and mistrust among her staff in her campaign. It doesn't bode well for her ability to manage an effective government bureaucracy and inspire loyalty among State Department staff.

So far it should be said that they seem to be behaving somewhat, at least in the fact that Bill has fairly readily given the Obama transition team all the information that it has asked for (and apparently would give more without much hesitation). Still, I'm a little worried. Clinton has abilities, and star power, which could be important -- I can imagine a world-famous person like herself would have greater status and pull with foreign leaders than a Madeleine Albright or Warren Christopher. (She is also very knowledgeable about the Middle East, at least according to Jeffrey Goldberg). Still, it remains to be seen whether she can really work under Obama and keep her ego in check. Will she undermine him? That may be a little extreme (she wants to succeed for herself as much as him), but will she really work as a loyal team player? Does she even see the issues in basically the same way as he does?

Lastly, Steve Clemons has a more positive view of this whole thing here. It makes some decent and some mediocre points, and I'm still skeptical.

Teams, Of Transitions And Rivals

From everything I've read so far, I just have to say that I have been very happy, even excited by Obama's transition process: He is focusing first on the White House staff, not the Cabinet (a mistake Bill Clinton made); he has appointed a total player, wonk and loyalist as Chief of Staff who seems to be about getting things done and knowing how to do it in a place like Washington; he has already begun to signal or outright state what his first priorities will be (the economy and energy); and, by the fact that he is considering having Gates and Clinton in his Cabinet he is assembling a "team of rivals" Linclon-style, which I love. This is a man who is not afraid of having a lot of strong and differing advice around him. Though it just occurred to me that Bush's cabinet looked this way at first -- remember that Rumsfeld the heavyweight was brought in to counter Powell the heavyweight -- it feels like Obama's choices, if they are Gates and Clinton, go much farther. First, Gates is a Republican, so this is a true oppositional voice. Also, he is a holdover from the Bush administration. Obama wants the whatever wisdom the Bush administration has accumulated inside his administration (unlike the Bushies who seemed to do everything the opposite of Clinton). Second, Clinton is a mega-star, known the world over. Her reputation and level of fame rivals his. To have someone who he ran against in a harsh campaign in his cabinet is a sign of real maturity. In this context the pick of Emanuel also looks good: such strong personalities need a strong hand to control them. In the first four Bush years Condi Rice got steamrolled as National Security Advisor (of course, it didn't help to have Cheney doing whatever he wanted). A strong chief of staff seems to signal a strong desire for centralized decision-making.

"America Doesn't Torture", Ctd.

Yesterday I wrote about how I was relieved to hear on 60 minutes that Obama plans to end torture as U.S. policy. It was clear and unequivocal and it is still heartening. But, I also noted that John Brennan, former head of the National Counter Terrorism Center is in possibly in line for Director of the C.I.A. and has supported torture in the past. This morning I thought it would be enough if Obama were to make himself clear. Maybe it will be, but Andrew Sullivan reminds me that this is such a key issue, and such an issue rife with potential for equivocation, that appointing a person associated with the Bush administration on this, even if the extent of the association and support is probably not the way to go. I say probably because I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Obama -- he seems to be assembling a "team of rivals" cabinate, a team that will allow for diverse opinions, so perhaps he wants someone to challange him even on controversial intelligence and torture.

But, still, I am a little queasy: torture is a bright line for me. It's not something to be debated. It can only be rejected completely and in crytal clear ways. Some of Brennan's interviews (like this one with CBS's Harry Smith, which can be found on Glenn Greenwald's site) don't give me hope:

Mr. BRENNAN: Well, the CIA has acknowledged that it has detained about 100 terrorists since 9/11, and about a third of them have been subjected to what the CIA refers to as enhanced interrogation tactics, and only a small proportion of those have in fact been subjected to the most serious types of enhanced procedures.

SMITH: Right. And you say some of this has born fruit.

Mr. BRENNAN: There have been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the deaths of 3,000 innocents.

These are exactly the same types of answers supporters of torture have been giving for years.

Also, there's this article from the AP on how Bush officials who authorized torture are unlikely to see prosecution from an Obama Justice Department. This is completely expected. As a very practical and political person, Obama would not want his administrations energies sucked up by something so controversial as that, especially since it would probably lead to a direct confrontation with some of the most powerful former Bushies. I'm not sure how I feel about this myself: I don't want Obama's administration absrobed by this one issue so much it can't accomplish anything, but I think getting to the bottom of this is part what it means to live under the rule of law, plus it would set a precendent making it harder for future administrations to abuse power. I guess I think it should happen, but I won't cry a lot if it doesn't.

A New New Deal?

Another very good answer from the 60 minutes interview with Obama. This one on his Economic policy:

Kroft: There's been talk on Capitol Hill and a number of Democratic congressmen have proposed programs that are part of sort of a new New Deal. The possibility of reviving agencies like the Home Ownership Loan Corporation.

Mr. Obama: Two points I'd make on this. Number one, although there are some parallels to the problems that we're seeing now and what we say back in the '30s, no period is exactly the same. For us to simply recreate what existed back in the '30s in the 21st century, I think would be missing the boat. We've gotta come up with solutions that are true to our times and true to this moment. And that's gonna be our job. I think the basic principle that government has a role to play in kick starting an economy that has ground to a halt is sound.

I think our basic principle that this is a free market system and that that has worked for us, that it creates innovation and risk taking, I think that's a principle that we've gotta hold to as well. But what I don't wanna do is get bottled up in a lot of ideology and is this conservative or liberal. My interest is finding something that works.

And whether it's coming from FDR or it's coming from Ronald Reagan, if the idea is right for the times then we're gonna apply it. And things that don't work we're gonna get rid of.

He's a pragmatic guy, non-ideological, and I love it.

"America Doesn't Torture"

Watching tonight's episode of 60 Minutes, Obama just said that closing Guantanamo and ending a policy of torture will be one of his top priorities once he's in office. I still hold back judgement until we see some actual results, but it's the most clear and definitive statement I've seen him make. I'm feeling hopeful that this awful, terrible policy might come to an end.

(Countering this is the rumor that the future head of the CIA may be John Brennan, former director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, has been a supporter of rendition and "coercive interrogation. We shall see where Obama's beliefs really lie.)

Against The Auto Bailout

I think this might be the first thing that Obama does that I will disagree with. It remains to be seen what the deal that he wants looks like -- though, according to the Times, it doesn't look like Congress has the votes -- but even so, I'm very skeptical that saving the auto industry is the right thing to do. My gut reaction is to agree with David Brooks:

This is a different sort of endeavor than the $750 billion bailout of Wall Street. That money was used to save the financial system itself. It was used to save the capital markets on which the process of creative destruction depends.

Granting immortality to Detroit’s Big Three does not enhance creative destruction. It retards it. It crosses a line, a bright line. It is not about saving a system; there will still be cars made and sold in America. It is about saving politically powerful corporations.A Detroit bailout would set a precedent for every single politically connected corporation in America.

While I readily admit that I know next to nothing about the issue, it seems to me that the big U.S. car companies have been slowly dying for decades. This emergency bailout would merely postpone the inevitable. I mean, Honda, Toyota show how you can be a successful, innovative car company. Thomas Friedman wrote yesterday about how the vice-chairman of G.M. said that Prius-like hybrids aren't profitable. But things look differently when demand for oil is increasing and will keep increasing over the long term. I suppose the car companies would have said that high gas prices are a recent, unpredictable phenomena. But my guess is they'd be wrong. It's a no brainer to see that over the decades, as poorer countries industrialize they will demand more energy and oil prices will go up. The Big Three are guilty of short-term tactical business strategies based on things like SUVs and trucks (where the profit margins are higher, I believe) when they should have been preparing for the inevitable.

An argument for the bailout would be the ripple effect of letting a car company go bankrupt in the middle of a recession, and I guess that I'm simply ignorant of the effect of this on the already tough economies of Michigan, Ohio, etc. But it seems to me that the failure of these companies represents something that won't be solved by an emergency bailout. These companies need massive, foundational-level change in order to compete in the 21st century and, as I said, the bailout merely postpones the inevitable.

Google Can Help Keep You Healthy

This is amazing and fascinating. Google has created a site that tracks incidence of the flu across the country based on the number of Google searches. So if a lot of people in Indiana are looking up information on the flu, the site assumes that's a good indication that Indiana has a lot of flu cases. It turns out, at least from the explantory page, that that is a good assumption. That page shows a comparison of Center for Disease Control data and Google flu-related searches and there s a clear similarity. In addition, the Google graph is faster in showing the incidence of flu by about two weeks! Amazing! The aggregate power of the information is looking to transform, just completely transform the way we learn about and live in the world. Though, there are some things to maybe disturb me, like the wiki-ization of human health, along with everything else. Is it so smart for us to be so dependent on a total democratization of all knowledge? I don't think so. Still, I'll certainly be using this site.

Profuse Apologies

For the last two weeks or so I have been posting very infrequently and I just wanted to apologize to all the dedicated fans of My Evolution out there (you know who you are... Cosmo Brown). A combination of work and Obama fatigue really knocked the intellectual and creative wind out of me. But I feel it coming back now. In fact, I hope that tonight I'll be able to post some. So sorry that I haven't contributed much lately, but fear not, My Evolution is still evolving.

A Prop 8 Post

I haven't said anything about Proposition 8 yet, but I thought I'd post this video from Colbert. It's great as usual:

I'm on TV!... In the Netherlands!

This blogging thing hasn't been going so well, but I'm going to try to catch up. I promise. Last week sort of wiped me out and I'm just now recovering. Right now I'm just going to post something really quick. A few weeks ago I was interviewed by a Netherlands journalist doing a report on Obama-mania here in NYC. She had already interviewed African-Americans on Obama and now she needed a nice white boy. I have to admit it was a lot of fun spouting off and telling her what I thought. You can watch the video here. It's in dutch, but you can hear me talk in english. I appear twice, once about 2 minutes in and then about 4 or 5 minutes in. I'm finally a TV pundit. (The video is a little flakey. Just give it 30 seconds or a minute.)

Update: The link should be fixed.

Rahm the Rottweiler?

So Rahm Emmanuel is going to be the new chief of staff. His reputation is that he's a very capable son-of-a-bitch -- not a diplomat. My first instinct is that this is good. Obama needs people who are capable and not afraid of stepping on toes or pissing people off. If there is anything to learn from the Republican party it's that we can't be afraid to be assholes sometimes in order to get the things we want done. I did however, read a critical assesment from Yuval Levin at the Corner that points out that being chief of staff is a people-managing job, which isn't Emmanuel's strong suit. It does seem, I have to admit, to go against the idea that Obama doesn't like drama and would want a administration that reflects his campaign. And then again, there could be a good cop, bad cop thing going on here. So...Well, we'll see, won't we. (I should also point out that from the few times I've read the Corner, it's a far right-wing blog that shouldn't be taken too seriously)

Live Blogging The Election

Ok, I'm starting this late, which means a few things have already happened. Here we go.

11:58 -- Obama is about to speak and I'm running out of power. Good night, and good luck to the entire country!

11:26 -- A very gracious speech by John McCain. Evoking the historic achievement of having an African-American as president was first class.

11:10 -- CNN calls it: Obama will be the next president! (I called it first!)

10:28 -- At this point the networks need to keep the drama going, but there's really no more drama. One thing for me to ponder later (as if I have the time) is some exit polls.

10:08 -- I'm calling it. With Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Mexico, Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States! Also, Chris Shays loses in Connecticut. As my friend points out, he was the last Republican Congressman in New England.

10:02 -- Comedy Central's Indecision 2008 opening graphics are great.

9:30 -- It's really close in Virginia and... North Carolina.

9:23 -- Ohio! Is it possible for Obama to lose with this pickup?

9:15 -- McCain just won Georgia, so far 60 to 39, which is by a much wider margin -- if it holds up -- than I thought was expected.

8:54 -- Elizabeth Dole loses in North Carolina. I wonder if this signals a real Democratic sweep?

8:40 -- CNN calls Pennsylvania. With this and New Hampshire -- already called -- going to Obama, it looks pretty much impossible for McCain. And I'm excited.

8:00 -- FiveThirtyEight predicts Obama: 349, McCain:189, winning 52.3% of the popular vote.

Barack Obama For President

Working a regular job and writing my script has really cut down on my blogging time, but today I'm going to try to post a couple of times, starting with my official endorsement. In a future post I want to write down all my reasons, but for right now I'll just say that I have voted this morning for Barack Obama for president of these United States (seeing Palin on the ballot made me shiver). Incidentally, the lines were longer than I'd ever seen them, by a factor of at least 10. I've never had to wait more than 5-10 minutes, but today I waited about 30-35. It makes me wonder, where have all these people been in previous elections? (As I was coming in to work, the building guard and I started talking about the election and she said, "I think in this election it's important to vote").

Sullivan On An Obama Presidency

Andrew Sullivan writes a column in the UK Times online on the potential possibilities and pitfalls for Obama if he becomes president. I've wanted to write something about what Obama would be like as president, but Sullivan is much smarter than me, so until I come up with something interesting, here is his article:

There is also an enormous liability for Obama in the great hopes he has inspired. The reason for the wave of optimism behind him – just look at the massive crowds across the country this past year – is almost entirely due to the profound national demoralisation of the recent past. Iraq and Afghanistan, Katrina and the financial meltdown, torture and religious extremism: all these have led many Americans to the brink of despair about their own country. A historically unprecedented number of Americans believe their country is on the wrong track and view Obama as the vehicle to repair it.

Among the most enthusiastic Obama supporters, there are tinges of hero worship and aspirations beyond anything any human being can deliver. And the hostility born of dashed expectations is always the worst. People expecting a messiah will at some point be forced to realise they have merely elected a president.

No president will be able to wave the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan away with some kind of magic wand – there are few good options in either conflict, and many potential perils. No president will be able to end a recession with deep roots or alter market confidence in a single speech.

No president can change the Earth’s climate in four or eight years. And when Obama’s limitations emerge, as they will, there is a danger that the powerful expectations of his young base may turn to tears. This is always the risk with political “movements”. They conjure up utopias that can simply never happen.

Between the roiling and increasingly bitter rapids on the right and the left, can Obama maintain a steady course? We cannot know, of course. But the evidence of the past year is encouraging. What has been truly amazing is the preternatural calm and moderation Obama has shown throughout this volatile and emotional campaign. He has managed to get to the brink of the White House by beating some of the most formidable political machines in America – the Clintons and the Roves – without intensifying the conflict or polarising the country himself.