For those of you who may have been living in a cave the last few days, Barack Obama was elected as the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday.
I am truly excited at the prospect of how our country will change as a result of this historic election. I am also appalled at some of the knee jerk reactions I’ve seen from McCain supporters. Yes people, a black man (who also happens to be a democrat) will be running this country for the next four years. This does NOT mean that the world is coming to an end, that the rapture is imminent, that socialism is inevitable, that Americans should worry that Obama’s “terrorist” connections are going to destroy the country, or any number of idiotic and disrespectful reactions I’ve heard.
I wouldn’t call myself a politically active person. I fall in the “moderate” scale on just about every political assessment test I’ve taken. I wouldn’t call myself a democrat, just as I wouldn’t call myself a republican. I voted for Bush in 2004. I voted for Obama in 2008.
One of the reasons Obama got my vote because he ran a respectful campaign. I despise all the mudslinging and finger-pointing that happens in elections. McCain and Palin were particularly pathetic in this election, and if I had intended to vote for McCain in September I would have changed my mind by November. Sarah Palin was another reason that McCain did not get my vote. Ugh. That woman is an embarrassment to females as a whole.
I don’t necessarily agree with everything Obama intends to do in his presidency. But I do think that he’ll do incredible things in his tenure. This is history in the making, and I can’t wait to see how it all turns out.
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 7, 2008 at 1:15 am
Scott
I would call myself a politically literate person, but I haven’t been politically active in about a year. With that said, I feel really bemused by all of this. Obama’s supporters think he’s messianic, and his detractors think he’s a menace. It seems to me that they’re both ignorant, and I feel almost but not quite alone in that knowledge. I want to share a few links, if you and your readers are curious:
Making Excuses for Obama: http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13698
Obama’s Audacious Deference: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11936 (This article is long, but it’s very important. Paul Street has done an excellent job, with more articles like this and a recent book, demolishing the myth of Obama.)
In other words, I really wish that Obama lived up to the image his detractors have of him. If the Supreme Court wasn’t at stake, and if McCain had gotten his wish and picked Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman, I would have not felt any need to vote for Obama, and thus I would have been an undecided voter: undecided between Ralph Nader (independent,) Cynthia McKinney (Green,) or Brian Moore (Socialist.)
I could go on, if you’re curious.
November 7, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Luke
I didn’t realize he was black until someone pointed it out to me.
(Of course, I wasn’t a supporter of either candidate…)
November 7, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Luke
I may blog about this on my own blog later, but I’m curious…what makes this election historic? I’m honestly asking; I don’t understand why it’s such a huge deal in comparison to other presidential elections.
November 7, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Elli
Well the obvious historic aspect is the fact that he’s our first African American president. When you consider the fact that black citizens didn’t even have a vote that counted for much of American history, putting a black man as the leader of the United States is a pretty huge deal.
I think it’s also significant in that a huge number of under-30 voters turned out and voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama. People in that age demographic have grown up in a time that was relatively free of the racial prejudices that our parents grew up with. I mean, they still had segregated schools, bathrooms, etc. less than 50 years ago, and there’s a large number of Americans who have deep seated racial prejudices as a result. If Obama had tried to run in 1960, I don’t think he would have made it past the initial primaries because of the color of his skin. I think this election signifies a new generation of voters taking control of the direction of our country; a generation of people who haven’t been trained to emphasize the difference between black and white skin. (You are a good example, having not processed the fact that Obama was black until someone else pointed it out
)
I believe this was also the first election where a woman ran for president (Hillary Clinton), and also where a woman was nominated as a vice presidential candidate (Sarah Palin). So from that perspective it was historic on many levels – had McCain/Palin won we would be calling it historic for electing the first female vice president.
November 8, 2008 at 10:19 am
Luke
It’s actually the second time a woman has been the VP nominee (Adlai Stevenson ran a woman 50 years ago, but he lost).
Hmm. I guess I don’t see it. But then, maybe the fact that I fail to see why it matters so much is fuel for your argument.
November 8, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Scott
You’re both forgetting Geraldine Ferraro, who was Walter Mondale’s running mate against Reagan/Bush in 1984.
Shirley Chisholm was the first black woman from a major party to run for president, though she lost in the Democratic primary to George McGovern in 1972.
November 8, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Elli
I guess this is why I don’t call myself a political person – I know nothing about political events prior to 2000 (I really hate history and have absolutely no desire to learn anything about it
). So I guess the female presence in the presidential election isn’t as historic as I thought.
December 4, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Chris
I voted for neither McCain nor Obama. McCain too far to the left for me, so well, that says it all as far as Obama’s concerned. I wanted to vote for Bob Barr since I agree with the Libertarians on more issues than any other party, but I couldn’t bring myself to do it as he’s a joke.
Do I think the world’s going to end b/c Obama’s elected? No. I think that’ll happen later with nukes.
Seriously though, like all presidents, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, although I’m so far quite unimpressed. I have a serious problem with presidents and congressmen who ignore the constitution. The Patriot Act has plenty in it that’s unconstitutional, so -1 President Bush. Obama’s selection of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is unconstitutional, so -1 President Obama. Of course, this carelessness towards the constitution seems to be a common trait among politicians these days and that, more than anything else, is what frightens me.
December 4, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Chris
I am curious, what about Palin makes her so repulsive to women? I would think that a female governor who’s picked to possibly be VP would inspire women to be all that they can be. So why is Sarah Palin an embarrassment to women as a whole? And I don’t have a silent agenda behind the question; I wasn’t really impressed with her, I’m just legitimately curious from a female’s perspective.
December 6, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Scott
Elli, forgive me for answering the question in your stead, or at least ahead of you, but I noticed that it was asked a couple of days ago.
Some people seemed to talk about Sarah Palin as if she was some kind of example for women, simply by virtue of her being female. Some commentators, seemingly lacking in political savvy, wondered if she would attract former Clinton voters who were bitter after Obama defeated her in the primaries. That sounds ridiculous, and many people mentioned this, but remember that most Americans lack political savvy as well.
Now, why might many women feel insulted being told Palin is some kind of spokeswoman for their gender?
*She’s a theocrat. That’s not just scary domestically; do you realize what those people think about the Middle East?
*She’s anti-choice, while cutting funding to a transitional home for teen mothers.
*She has a witch doctor.
*She continues to support abstinence-only sex ed. Can we all see how well that works? She claims kids should “hear about” contraception, but she opposes making it easily available.
*She supports a Federal Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
*She supports the failed War on (some) Drugs
*She calls herself a fiscal conservative, but clearly isn’t, as she presides over the highly rentier-capitalist state of Alaska. Rentier-capitalism isn’t necessarily disastrous, but her duplicity is noteworthy.
*Her statements on taxation do not match her actions.
*She’s devoted to fossil fuel and still waffles on whether or not climate change is man-made. According to Greenpeace, who should know, she’s the most anti-environment governor currently in power.
*Numerous statements display her ignorance of international affairs.
*She’s just as much of an imperialist as McCain, Obama, and Biden, and just as prostrate before the Zionists.
*She made smarmy and snarky references to certain parts of America being more “American” than others. That kind of dog-whistle seemed desperate, and it didn’t work well enough. Bill Maher said that “Sarah Palin’s about to find out that America’s big cities have something that small towns don’t: A lot of voters!”
*Her husband is a secessionist.
*She made all those references to Obama “palling around with terrorists.” Bill Ayers, and the rest of the Weather Underground, deliberately never killed anybody in the course of their guerilla campaign against US imperialism. Meanwhile, John McCain is a war criminal.
John McCain never really fit in with the theocratic wing of his party, and thus his handlers figured that, in order to pander to the religious types, they needed to pick a suitable VP candidate. There’s no greater clear and present threat to American women and girls than the religious right, especially when embodied by another woman.
December 7, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Chris
While that answers the question of why liberals hate her, that does not answer the question I asked. I want to know why Sarah Palin is a disgrace (or embarrassment) to women. What, in particular, is so revolting to women? Only a woman can answer this.
While I don’t have time to debunk the remarks you made about, I will hit the highlights:
She has a witch doctor? I haven’t heard this one yet, this should be good.
Her husband is a secessionist. No he isn’t, 5 minutes of real objective research will inform you that he never was and still isn’t a secessionist.
And speaking of ignorance of international affairs, would Obama’s idea of sanctioning Russia for the incident with Georgia not count in demonstrating ignorance of international affairs. I would like to think our next President knows who has veto powers in the UN and who doesn’t.
She made smarmy and snarky references to certain parts of America being more “American” than others. So? Michelle Obama said that America was a “down right mean country” and that she’s, for the first time in her adult life, actually proud of her country. They both should have kept their mouths shut.
She continues to support abstinence-only sex ed. Given the teen pregnancy rate we have know compared to 50 years ago when that IS what was taught, I’d say she’s probably right. I have a hard time accepting that abstinence only hasn’t worked when 1) we haven’t actually tried it in 25 years and 2) the teen pregnancy rate now is vastly higher than it was 50 years ago. Maybe we should actually give it a shot.
December 8, 2008 at 12:01 am
Elli
Sarah Palin bugs me for a couple of reasons. In every interview that I’ve ever seen her give, she has avoided or sidestepped the really important questions. If you are applying to be second-in-line for the most powerful position in the world, you need to be able to answer difficult questions and not sidestep issues.
In the VP debate, she was rolled over by Biden. But because she was an inexperienced politician AND a woman, everyone had ridiculously low expectations of what she should have to do in the debate. I’m sorry, if a woman is ever going to be respected in a position of leadership then she needs to meet the same standards that any other candidate would need to meet. She shouldn’t be allowed to get away with just smiling and nodding and saying something sweet and simple and have that somehow qualify her to lead a country.
I don’t want a hockey mom as my VP, and certainly not my president. I thought her constant identification with a simple hockey mom made her a less qualified candidate (well, that combined with the fact that she publicly had to ask what the vice president actually did, among other things).
I had far more respect for Clinton because she actually voiced her opinion and proved that she had the expertise and the intelligence to lead the nation. While I don’t necessarily agree with Clinton’s policies, and I’m glad that Obama won the democratic nomination over Clinton, I think that her bid for presidency was far more inspiring because she was a truly strong leader.
Palin’s decision to try to sway voters by saying that Obama cohorted with terrorists was in bad form in my opinion. That was the final straw that made me go from finding her annoying to finding her repulsive. It was cheap and low and I have no respect for a person who tries to slander another man with a ridiculous accusation in order to further her own position.
So those are my (admittedly biased) reasons for disliking Sarah Palin
December 8, 2008 at 12:11 am
Elli
And a comment on abstinence-only sex ed, our school never had sex-ed. I had many friends in middle school/high school end up with STD’s because they knew that they probably shouldn’t go “all-the-way,” but oral/anal sex didn’t really count so it was ok. Kids need to be aware of the risks and how to protect themselves.
Kids are going to fool around and have sex, and abstinence-only education isn’t going to change that. I’d rather have kids knowledgable about how to protect themselves than thinking that it’s just this fun, forbidden thing with no consequences. I think that teaching them about condoms and safe sex is better than hoping that they have the willpower to resist temptation and not have any kind of sexual interaction at all.
I personally feel like it is the parents’ responsibility to teach their children about sex and not rely on schools to be the sole source of information. However, the sad fact is that most parents are too embarrassed or too uninvolved in their kids lives to have that discussion, so the schools have to fill in the gaps. Isn’t the point of education to give people the information they need to make informed and intelligent decisions?
December 9, 2008 at 2:29 am
Scott
The Dutch have the lowest rates of STDs and teen pregnancy in the industrialized world. Indeed, across much of Europe (and other comparable places) adolescents are more sexually active than in the US, but have far fewer STDs than in the US. They also have far fewer accidental pregnancies. The same patterns hold true within the US, when one compares areas with comprehensive sex education to those with abstinence only. Why do you say that abstinence-only sex education hasn’t been tried in 25 years? That’s unfortunately all that’s been tried, in many places, for about 25 years.
Todd Palin belonged to the Alaska Independence Party, a secessionist party, for seven years. The AIP also is the state affiliate for the Constitution Party, an openly theocratic organization. Sarah Palin praised and encouraged the AIP, in no uncertain terms, at their most recent convention. Several AIP operatives have been instrumental in advancing Sarah Palin’s political career over the years.
Obama’s positions regarding Russia might indeed demonstrate ignorance, but it’s more likely they just demonstrate cynicism and his commitment to Washington’s status quo. He probably knows perfectly well that Georgia’s government started the war, but he always echoes the official Washington line on things like that. He surely knows about veto power at the UN, and probably intends to use it, like his predecessors, to try and silence condemnation of things like the embargo against Cuba (185 votes to 3, this year) and any criticism of Israeli government actions, among other things.
The witch doctor in question:
December 11, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Chris
Scott, facts are inconvenient sometimes:
Straight from my favorite, non-partisan, equal opportunity offender, FactCheck.org
“Palin was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party – which calls for a vote on whether Alaska should secede from the union or remain a state – despite mistaken reports to the contrary. But her husband was a member for years, and she attended at least one party convention, as mayor of the town in which it was held.
The party’s chair originally told reporters that Palin had been a member, but the official later retracted that statement. Chairwoman Lynette Clark told the New York Times that false information had been given to her by another member of the party after she first told the Times and others that Palin joined the AIP in 1994. Clark issued an apology on the AIP Web site.
The director of Alaska’s Division of Elections, Gail Fenumiai, confirms that Palin registered to vote in the state for the first time in May 1982 as a Republican and hasn’t changed her party affiliation since. She also told FactCheck.org that Palin’s husband, Todd, was registered with AIP from October 1995 to July 2000, and again from September 2000 until July 2002. (He has since been registered as undeclared.) However, the AIP says Todd Palin “never participated in any party activities aside from attending a convention in Wasilla at one time.”
There is still some dispute as to whether Sarah Palin also attended the AIP’s 1994 convention, held in Wasilla. Clark and another AIP official told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that both Palins were there. Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla two years later. The McCain campaign says Sarah Palin went to the 2000 AIP convention, also held in Wasilla, “as a courtesy since she was mayor.” As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning.”
December 11, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Chris
“In every interview that I’ve ever seen her give, she has avoided or sidestepped the really important questions.”
And Obama, McCain and Biden aren’t equally as guilty? I didn’t hear a straight answer out of any of the 4 of them the entire campaign.
I understand your points and can see how that would make her an embarrassment or repulsive to you, but I still don’t see how that makes her an embarrassment to women as a collective whole.
Concerning sex ed, neither you or Scott, to be perfectly fair, are giving it it’s due credit. It’s not like parents either teach them condoms or shame shame go screw around when we aren’t looking. While I agree that teens shouldn’t be left in the dark to figure this stuff out on their own, a parent can teach reasonable and effective abstinence. That hasn’t been done in our society in decades. Sorry, it just hasn’t. Since I can remember (and I’m 29) I’ve only heard “safe sex” and nothing else. It’s not unreasonable to teach teens that sex has it’s time and place and should be avoided until then. Alcohol is good when consumed responsibly. Would I take a flask of whiskey to work? No, there’s a time and a place and outside of that time and place, it’s inappropriate. The same can be taught about sex and can be done without bringing religion into it.
Finally, Scott, Bill Maher calling a guy who prays to cast out demons a witch doctor hardly makes the guy a witch doctor. First of all, Bill Maher is hardly an authority on witch doctors. Second, a witch doctor is one who uses magic to cure illnesses (like Voodoo). If praying over someone classifies one as a witch doctor then Elli’s a witch doctor (she prayed over me after my grandpa died) and so is half this country. Let’s get our definitions and fact straight, eh?
December 12, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Scott
So I’m right, in other words. Todd Palin, for seven years, was registered as a member of the AIP. That’s not necessarily damning, since lots of people never bother to change their registration even when it doesn’t reflect their votes and other actions. Sarah Palin’s treatment of the party clearly demonstrates that she does not consider their positions beyond the pale, indeed; she seems to endorse them. Why else would she have anything to do with a political party of which she is not a member?
What parents teach their children is not directly tied to questions of public policy. With that said, my point that abstinence-only education is ineffective and often counterproductive (even when it *works,* look at what sexual frustration wreaks across the Muslim world,) still stands. It seems self-evident to me that, in this, as in so many things, the Swedish example is superior to the Saudi example.
It’s mystifying to me why I should have to write this next part, but I accept that I do. If I read you correctly, you seem to be saying that it’s OK to pray “to cast out demons,” but using “magic to cure illnesses (like Voodoo)” is crazy. What’s the difference? Is there any evidence that either approach has any validity whatsoever? No! People give anecdotal evidence, the “argument from experience,” but there is no empirical evidence that any of this hocus-pocus accomplishes its stated objective. People say it gives them comfort, but that doesn’t make it true, and besides, there are other options besides buying into an empty promise.
There are no demons, there is no magic, and it’s pathetic that anyone continues to believe in either, or anything like it. Humanity has had no excuses for this nonsense for hundreds of years, if we ever did. It’s upsetting and terrifying that people in positions of power do so as well. The good news is that in much of the world, mentioning the supernatural from the political platform (let alone appearing in a video like Palin’s) would mean the end of one’s political career. It was once considered extremely bad taste in this country as well, and it looks good that it will become so once again.
December 13, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Elli
I can’t remember where I saw this, but I recall in the back of my mind a story being done about the female candidates this year and how they both perpetuated female stereotypes. Hillary was the bitch, and Sarah Palin was the ditz.
Maybe this is just my own tendencies coming out, but I think the ditz stereotype is far more damaging to women than the bitch stereotype. A bitch might be irritating and pushy, but they also have thick skins and the ability to make tough decisions, two qualities that have served male leaders quite well. Women have worked very hard over the last century to secure an equal footing in society with men who believe that women aren’t smart enough or tough enough to hang with the big boys. (Yes, this is another stereotype of course; I’m not suggesting that all men over the course of the last century have believed or supported this). But the “ditz” persona, in my opinion, undermines the effort toward equality.
McCain didn’t help this either by always saying how proud he was of Palin when reporters asked what he thought of her campaign. Is that something that he would say about an older white male vice presidential candidate? Of course not! He would have said something like he “respected” him, or he “supported” him. It was like patting her on the head and saying “awww you’re trying, good for you.” C’mon! If women are going to be respected as capable leaders then they need to be held to the same standards as any other male candidate.
She didn’t do anything (that I saw anyway) to make voters believe that she deserved to be VP because of her leadership skills or intellectual qualities. Instead she tried to bring in the female vote and appealed to the hearts of Americans by saying “I’m an everyday hockey mom! Vote for me because I understand true Americans!” Really? If Clinton hadn’t just lost the democratic nomination and left millions of frustrated female supporters looking for somewhere else to turn, would ANYONE have supported this kind of bid for presidency? How does being a hockey mom qualify you to run this country? Show me your qualifications, and by the way, a PTA badge doesn’t count. Had Palin made a concerted effort to explain her political ideas and what she hoped to accomplish during her term, and why she was the qualified candidate for the job, I might have a different opinion of her.
Of course, I will concede your point Chris and revise my statement to just say that I personally find her embarrassing, and many women that I personally know find her embarrassing as well, but that doesn’t speak for all women as a whole
December 14, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Chris
“If I read you correctly, you seem to be saying that it’s OK to pray “to cast out demons,” but using “magic to cure illnesses (like Voodoo)” is crazy.”
No, you don’t read me correctly.
All I said is that a pastor praying over a parishioner (whether its for healing, for wisdom, or to “cast a demon out”) does not make that person a witch doctor and yourself and Bill Maher seem to want to think. If you want to blur those lines, that’s fine, it’s your choice to keep yourself ignorant if you so desire.
December 14, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Scott
OK, then answer my question: what’s the difference, especially when the guy involved is talking about witchcaft? Those of us who know that “praying over a parishioner” in order to battle “witchcraft” is a load of superstitious drivel aren’t the ignorant ones.