George W. Bush

A nation built with African slaves inaugurates an African-American President.

A nation driven by culture wars born out of the Vietnam era moves into hope for more pragmatic, if still partisan, politics.

A nation fallen into the darkness of torture, of "collateral damage" of hundreds of thousands of lives, of ends justifying any means returns to an age of striving for the highest of American ideals.

A nation seduced by the fantasies popularized by Ronald Reagan, that markets are God, that government is evil, that global warming is a myth, that liberalism is out to destroy America, a nation almost paralyzed with the shock of the revealed lie of those fantasies -- a long nightmare, really -- returns to a reality-based vision of the world.

A nation coming off of one of the more ugly racist federal elections puts a black man into office.

Barack Obama is a pragmatic progressive whose intellect brings us hope that his leadership can guide the cumbersome bureaucracy and conflicting interests and influences into actions that make sense, based on reason.

It was truly audacious two years ago to believe this could happen. It took a lot of hope and the hard work of millions, and the faith of many more. But here it has happened.

Barack Obama is about to become President.

How unlikely.

How amazing.

The world is astonished. Today America returns to the light.

Watching the round-table on the NewsHour tonight, with Gwen Ifill leading several observers:

Rev. Joseph Lowery, who with Dr. King founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; he will deliver the benediction at tomorrow's swearing in; Charlayne Hunter-Gault, a NewsHour alum who was also the first African-American woman to attend the University of Georgia, she's now a special correspondent in Africa for NPR and other news organizations; Ta-Nehisi Coates, contributing editor for the Atlantic and a fellow at the Nation Institute; and Rael Nelson James, a development associate for KIPP DC, a network of high-performing inner-city charter schools in and around Washington, D.C.

... my friend asked me, "If Hillary had won the election, would we have a panel talking like this, about the "transcendental" nature of her election?"

Yes and no. It would be different.

If Hillary were elected, I don't think that the world's reaction would be quite the same. The world has seen a few quite prominent and powerful female leaders. Major nations today are led by female presidents (or similar titles). If America had elected Hillary Clinton, I think the world would be relieved that it wasn't McCain and the Bush era was ending, but I don't think they would be quite so rocked to their core. For all the misogyny in the world, women leaders are not so unknown.

(Stay with me, I'm coming back to Hillary in a moment.)

If you've traveled overseas in the past few years, you might know that, as racist as America has been (and still is), the rest of the world is on balance more racist. "Ethnic cleansing" is a foreign thing, not an American thing. Frankly, much of the world truly believed that America would never ever elect a black president.

And coming out of this darkest era in the modern history of the United States -- Iraq, torture, extraordinary renditions, surveillance, unilateralism -- the contrast of the impending Barack Obama presidency vs. the Bush presidency is pretty shocking. The world is relieved, astounded, hopeful, and I think inspired. We turned from the dark side. And this former slaver nation has elected Barack Obama!

So what about Hillary?

I'll say this: If Hillary had been elected, it would not be such a profound worldwide event, but it would be an earth-shattering change in domestic politics.

America does not have a strong history of powerful female political leaders. It's not just misogyny -- that's too easy. It's also a matter of cultural habit, and blindness.

It took an exceptionally intelligent, graceful, savvy, tenacious Barack Obama to cross the racial barrier. And perhaps it's his bipartisan rhetoric that has made it possible at all.

It will take an even more exceptionally intelligent, graceful, savvy, tenacious woman candidate -- also bipartisan, I think, to win against the prejudgers -- to cross the gender barrier.

Because there is a barrier, no question.

Hillary might have been that person, but I think she truly undermined her own candidacy. Someday a woman will win. And while the world at that moment may just shrug, it will be a transcendent event in America.

(Unless it's Sarah Palin, in which case America is doomed.)

There seems to be a lot of victim mind out there in the blogosphere these days directed at Barack Obama. For example, Reclusive Leftist's post, "Fuck off, Obama":

Actually, what women everywhere now know is that this country still isn’t ready for a woman President. That if a woman runs for President, she doesn’t stand a fucking chance. No matter how brilliant and capable she is, no matter how many people vote for her, the media will crucify her and some shady half-ass snake oil MAN will be handed the nomination instead.

Fuck off, Obama. Just fuck off.

Soviet-style one-candidate election results have now become a rallying cry for a perception of injustice that their candidate did not win. And if she did not win, well, then, it must be because she's a woman, right?

Echidne asks:

Are feminists really divided so clearly along the lines she describes: age, race and class? Are the waves of feminism really so different in their understanding of what constitutes feminism?

I want to leave this post full of questions for you to think about. But I'm already feverishly thinking about some of these issues in terms of my own feminist definitions, about horizontal and vertical equity, about the onion layers of feminism and about which layers we want to work on, about how someone who wasn't part of any of the waves in person might see them and so on. I think we need to go deeper in the onion, to strip off the layers one by one, not to discard them, but to investigate each of them on our way to the core. That probably doesn't make any sense right now, but I think that the way I write about feminism is more in the world of concepts and theories and less in the world of how they ultimately crop up and interact with other phenomena. Is that bad or good or indifferent? Or even true?

Then there's the whole problem of the class "women" being part of so many other classes, defined by race, income, class, religion, ethnicity, so many ties of solidarity of shared experience, of shared oppressions in some cases, too. How does that all play out in defining feminism?

Is it really the case that the nation cannot accept the idea of a woman president? Or is the unthinkable, unacceptable fact is that we as a nation are ready to elect a woman, but Hillary isn't the one, not now?

Some see it as a tragedy that Hillary Clinton did not win the nomination. But I see the real tragedy that so many women (and some men) are stepping into victim mind and seeing a women president as an impossibility. And I do not feel that this is at all the case.

Let's remember that, when she announced, Hillary Clinton was regarded as the front-runner. She had the name recognition. She had the campaign infrastructure. She had the establishment ties with the DLC. She was generally respected in Washington.

But let's not forget that Hillary Clinton was also problematic from the get-go. She had a ton of Clinton baggage. She had the war vote. She had her image problems, leading to a lot of questions of just who she is. She had a disastrous campaign that ignored caucuses and did not imagine having to go on past Super Tuesday. She had her big-money lobbyist ties, and a general lack of grassroots support financially, compared with Barack Obama. And she had Bill popping up, mouthing off, reminding everybody that when you buy Hillary, you get Bill, too.

And her falling into the racist realpolitik analysis on tape and on camera didn't help. It added a real ugliness to her persistent attacks on Barack Obama.

This was during a campaign when Obama couldn't get his message out, thanks to mainstream media obsession with Reverend Wright, flag pins, stealing phrases from his own campaign adviser, and on and on. Clinton was getting plenty of coverage of her own attacks on Obama, while he was buried in a media agenda of trivialities and distractions. Did one reporter ask Clinton why she wasn't wearing a flag pin? (Or McCain for that matter?)

No, it seems Obama has been the whipping boy in the campaign coverage.

What's the narrative we have this week? Rachel S. writes on Alas, a Blog:

One thing that struck me about Clinton and Obama is that I didn’t notice either one of them make note of the historic significance of having the first black nominee for President on a major party ticket. In contrast, both of them noted the groundbreaking campaign by Hillary Clinton, arguing that she was blazing a path for women, but I didn’t hear the same for Obama. Isn’t that an interesting distinction between racial politics and gender politics? The colorblind ideology silences almost any public discussion of racism by black candidates, who are vying for white votes. In contrast, we don’t have as much silence on the gender front (from the candidates). That has been a fairly consistent pattern in this Presidential election over the past few months.

Let's look at Barack Obama then. John on Liberal Rapture writes:

The problem is Obama. Clinton supporters came to her initially because of her experience. We liked her. We did not - in large part - become fervently committed to her until the media and Obama's campaign began to trash her. Obamites, quit pretending this trashing did not happen. It did. Anyone who spent 32 seconds on Kos-co or watching MSNBC knows you were ugly and relentless in your vilification. Stop lying about it. It is insulting. Our passion for Hillary arose out of her response to this hatchet job. She went from being the best person for the job - to the fierce leader of a huge part of the Democratic Party.

Policy is not the issue. Cue: Obamites going nuts. "How can you say this??? Supreme Court etc etc" This is an ironic response to say the least. You guys have not voted, rallied, and donated to Obama based on policy - ever.

Oh really? Talk about the strawman/straw-woman! What about the major policy difference between Clinton and Obama: the war on Iraq? I'd say there's a very large contingent of voters who would not vote for Clinton because of her vote authorizing the war, and her failure to really own up to it. (Sorry, but just saying "I've taken responsibility for my vote" doesn't cut it.)

Almost to a person the commitment to Obama has been put in terms of personality.

Personality counts, though, doesn't it? We elect a person, not a platform. This isn't parliament. You can't just dismiss personality when it comes to leadership -- true leadership.

Putting what we know about his past aside for a moment - why don't you appeal to Clinton voters based on what you find so suitable in this man? I am not kidding. I am filling in a gap I see in the play for Clinton voters. Honestly - in over a year I have yet to hear WHY HIM?

Why him?

• Because one of the most broken things in DC is the fact that lobbyists are not only dominating the Congressional agenda, they are actually writing the bills, and Obama is running against that idea, while Clinton embraces it.
• Because Clinton is part of the DLC, which has been a huge sell-out to lobbyists.
• Because Obama's voting record is progressive.
• Because Obama paints a vision of the future, while Clinton was running on the past, on her resume.
• Because Obama is a very smart guy who doesn't insult our intelligence when discussing the issues.
• Because I can sense Obama's authenticity, while every time I've seen Clinton over the past 8 years, I've been left wondering who she is, what she really believes.
• Because of the Iraq War, his opposition of it.
• Because I'm seeing a lot of Republicans fascinated and interested in Obama.
• Because Obama speaks centrist but votes progressive.
• Because Obama's financial support comes from 1.5 million individual donations from ordinary people, not from a few thousand elites and lobbyists.
• Because he worked his way up from humble beginnings.
• Because of his background as a community leader.

Them's just a few off the top of my head. But I wonder if the real question here is whether an older generation of people, who tend to have, let's face it, more hang-ups about race than younger Americans, are willing to vote for a black man.

3 recessions under Bush presidents. (3 Republican recessions, many would say.) But this one is the worst since the post-War period [audio].

Should we really be surprised?

Book says Souter mulled resignation after Bush v. Gore.

In “The Nine,” which goes on sale Sept. 18, Toobin writes that while the other justices tried to put the case behind them, vid Souter alone was shattered,” at times weeping when he thought of the case. “For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice,” Toobin continues. “That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same.”

What happened in those deliberations?