Brilliant blog, MJ. This sort of clear-eyed willingness to admire the positive attributes with those who you disagree with at a fundamental levels makes it much easier to find common ground on those things that you hold in common.

I have been dismayed by the initial response from the far left and far right of both parties. One is ready to burn their enemies at the stake now that they have a majority, refusing to see how moderate republicans will react to such fervor. The other is already gearing up to be the wrench in Obama's American Green Works efforts, which must be funded in large part by allocating wasted defense spending for antiquated or unneeded weapons systems.

I like that you have found a way to expand the conversation in much the same way that Barack has done. Following his lead is sure to reap much bigger benefits for the democratic party than the old reaction to winning that has been practiced these last 40 years.

I second this sentiment. I think it is somewhere BEYOND just 'important' that we make a start to drain the personal viciousness from our politics.

I think it is essential, if we are to continue to have a chance to make the informed, objective judgements that the proper function of democracy requires of its citizens: Minds clouded by highly-stoked anger, partisan gamesmanship (THIS IS NOT A GAME! THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.) prejudice (of ANY kind), and the passing heat of any given passion of the moment, are not capable of thinking clearly.

I confess to cringing a little when I hear overtones here and there in the last 2 days of "getting them back", or "Now, it's OUR turn!", and that sort of thing. I believe the election of President Obama was intended as a page-turner in just about every possible way - among other things, toward genuine unity of purpose, a genuine tolerance for other points-of-view, and a genuine respect for ALL elements of governing methodology.

President Bush has been deeply WRONG on many things, and has had a deeply WRONG view and very distructive idea of how to conduct the Presidency, and how the Presidency relates to the greater public will. That said, I do not believe he is any more PERSONALLY 'evil' than you or me.

This administration (on balance) has done a lot of damage to our institutions, but that damage CANNOT be corrected by simply applying the same arrogant, nihilistic methods in the service of a DIFFERENT governing philosophy. As we can now plainly see, the public will not long stand for it, nor SHOULD it. If we're going to establish any kind of tyranny, let it be the tyranny of good ideas, proper execution, and common sense.

I agree, Bush and Cheney didn't cater to the racists.

It's funny what you can see in hindsight, especially when you see some of the bile coming out of the RW sites today.

Yes, Bernie, I was responding to you, in part. Big surprise. You inspire me.

Maybe my take is different because You grew up in such a racist area. I actually got in trouble in high school for having been seen "necking" (actually it was an innocent kiss) an African-American girl in my class (the only one). My dad, who was a lefty and racial liberal, told me that as a small town businessman, he can't have his son acting that way on Main Street!

Also, my family is very mixed, ethnically and racially. I hear the most horrific racial libels from the non-Jewish (not all) members of the family (although not in front of the African American and Asian Rosenbergs).

In Rosenberg's previous screed, he pronounced himself "nauseated by the pandering to Israel".

Has Rosenberg ever claimed to be "nauseated" by the constant threats of genocide directed against Jews by jihadists?

No?

But Rosy claims that Bush is a bigot.

Being called racist by Rosenberg is like being called plump by Dom DeLuise.

"Would America have elected Barack Obama if white Americans had not gotten accustomed to seeing (in succession) two African-American Secretaries of State? I don't think so. Before Bush, African-Americans were appointed to some good posts but not to our #1 foreign policy job".

Yes and regardless of the color of their skin, "What a mistake that was". One got us into a War with his unflinching support for the lies the President sent him to the UN with, and the others continued unquestioning support of the Presidents rogue War

You can't hit every ball MJ, especially with as many posts as you make. This one is a strike out. The results of the election would have been no different without Powell and Rice. Obama didn't make the election about race, and neither did caucasian voters who voted for him. Minorities did apparently make it about race, as they came out in greater numbers than they ever did before. No one showed up to the polls because of Powell and Rice. And no one voted for Barack because of Powell and Rice.

Strrrike!

I think you could also give as much credit to Kiefer Sutherland and Denis Haysbert for the latter's role in 24.

This ongoing series, much loved by the Republican right, depicted not only a black President, but a black president who was morally and intellectually superior to the other pols in the series.

Viewers who watched the series would find themselves empathising with, and cheering on what at the time was something that was almost unimagineable in the real world of 2003/2004

One more point. Rice is an African-American woman!
Really amazing and, no matter what we think of her, that is something.

The neocons were furious with Bush for not adopting their Islamofascist terminology.

Excellent point. I still want to see the bastard (and his cabinet) indicted for war crimes. Rice and Powell included.

Fantastic blog, salient points!

Further proof that Republicans in general can't be caricatured as racist. I've believed for two decades now - since I was in university - that a black man can be president in America. That America could do it.

Following the news, you'd think we suddenly woke up one day and went from being hateful to enlightened. What a weary view of Americans!

"People who voted for Obama couldn't give a goddamn about Bush loyalists no matter what color they are."

My point illustrated.

Going on a witch hunt would, at best, lead to hollow, counterproductive victories. That does not mean, however, that if the Obama administration is to be more than a caretaker prelude to another round of plutocracy, militarism, abuse of the poor and working classes,etc., that moderate Republicans can be protected from ideological, philosophical, and probably economic trauma. The country, not just moderate Republicans, has be slowly and painfully disabused of the fantastic conservative perspective and the destructive results of its supposed implementation.

Fact is, "W" never gave any evidence of holding racist attitudes. I'm not talking about his programs which, to put it mildly, did not help African-Americans unless they were in the upper tax brackets. I'm talking about old fashioned racism -- or even just the slur the occasionally slips out of the mouth of even our most liberal leaders.[Emphasis mine.]

Sorry, but this post is absolutely ridiculous.

You are suggesting that if you successfully kept you racist thoughts to yourself and not let them "slip out" in that good "old-fashioned" manner, you will not be considered a racist. That is by far dumber than anything that ever escaped glossy lips of Sarah Palin. Let me call "Bullshit!" on that one.

White Americans have a problem confronting racism in all its ugly apparitions. You can deal with calling out the KKK, but not the racist personnel manager who just quietly 86's the employment applications of would be workers who don't look "all-American" to her. You can be appalled at someone using the N-word, but don't believe the subtle playing of the race card when it is staring you in the face. You're outraged at the plot hatched by a couple of skinheaded Neo-Nazi to kill a presidential nominee and dozens of other innocent black folk, but can't quite bring yourself to reconcile the slow off the mark reaction by the Bush Administration to a Cat 5 Hurricane bearing down on a predominantly African-American city. Mere incompetence (of which the Bush years were overflowing) cannot explain how and why New Orleans remains rubble and her evacuated citizens -- by and large all black -- have yet to be repatriated with their home city. (Question for you: For how many years would you tolerate being a refugee in your own country?)

As for your notion that white people had to get used to the idea of seeing black men and women in positions of power (citing Powell and Rice), how shameful is that? (And the Tiger Woods reference? What the hell? Barack Obama was not running for America's Greatest Golfer. You should have just gone ahead and said, "He's a credit to his race.") I suppose you needed "The Cosby Show" to get used to the idea that all black folk don't live in high-rise, inner city projects and hum the theme to "Good Times" all day long, and shout out "Dy-no-mite" when we're happy.

As for your notion that Bush was embracing of Arab-Americans, ask all of those who found themselves on the no-fly list, or those who were questioned, or renditioned, or denied employment in the government (as translators or linguists, for example).

As other have already suggested, for some of you, it was just a matter of coming to the conclusion that "the black guy couldn't fuck things up worse than Dubya already has. And we've got nothing left to lose. Let's take a chance on him."

In my book, Bush gets no credit here.

"Fact is, "W" never gave any evidence of holding racist attitudes."

KATRINA.......stupid

And, just to be on-topic for a moment:

But didn't W. get into (and stay in) office in the first place largely by - systematically and ferociously - disenfranchising the hell out of African-American voters (with a lot of help from his friends)?

That's a big "but" to overlook when singing his praises on this issue...

W. may be a darn swell guy, left to his own devices, but the fact is he enabled - by both action and inaction - a lot of really awful stuff to happen to an awful lot of people, not least of all "brown people" the world over.

Barack Obama is a biracial man, having received 50% of his DNA from his “white” American mother and 50% of his DNA from his “black” African father. Of course, Barack Obama looks more like his father than his mother because for unknown reasons the part of DNA that controls skin color, hair type, and other characteristics of physical appearance is generally more dominant in “black” DNA than in “white” DNA.

His father was very intelligent and passed that potential along to his son through the part of his DNA that directs brain building. His mother was also intelligent and half of her son’s brain building DNA came from her. Barack Obama barely knew his father who left when Barack was 2 years old. Young Barack was raised and nurtured primarily by his mother and his maternal grandparents, and he received a first rate education.

Perhaps the example of Barack Obama will help the human race begin to fully understand that each of has a new combination of parental DNA, our own DNA, whose brain building capability is independent of whatever characteristics of physical appearance other parts of that DNA happen to produce; and once built, that new human brain, in combination with the nurturing, education, and experience it receives, develops functional capabilities that are also independent of whatever characteristics of physical appearance one’s DNA produces.

In short, the quality of the brain building DNA provided by one’s parents matters; nurturing, education, and experience matter; but characteristics of physical appearance produced by other parts of one’s DNA are unrelated to the ultimate functional capabilities of one’s brain. They don’t matter.

Since President elect Obama received 50% of his DNA from his “white” American mother and 50% of his DNA from his “black” African father, it is inappropriate to call him “the first black president of America” simply because he looks more like his father than his mother. But having a “black African father and a “white” American mother clearly qualifies Barack Obama to be appropriately called the first African American president.

religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat

Massachusetts where I have lived/worked, social workers and other staff at the hospitals/clinics that provide care are a good resouce kim kardashian weight

car shipping, auto transport, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, car shipping.