Who would request a recount? I'm all in favor of recounts if something might change, but as you said, the Presidential election is decided. Is there really any point in recounting Missouri when the only difference would be if Obama got 365 or 376 Electoral Votes?

On the other hand, based on the records of Powell and Rice, it could be argued that they showed that blacks were not up to the job.

I do think that sports icons like Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods helped too. Their popularity transcended race.

I think Obama also transcends race for the majority of people. And thanks to changing social mores, people who felt uncomfortable with Obama’s race felt less free to spread their opinion publicly.

In short, there are many reasons Obama was able to win. Could he have won if Bush had not been one of the worst Presidents in history? If McCain had been a better candidate and had he not picked such a laughably unqualified running mate? What if the financial meltdown had held off until after the election?

Obama’s campaign came together at the convergence of a multitude of events, many out of his control. While he was there to seize the opportunity, I’m not sure he could have won in more normal circumstances.

The difference is even dwarfed by the fifth-party candidate who got 8893 votes!

An instant run-off would solve this problem in two ways. One it would help credible third-party candidates, because you could vote for them without the fear of “wasting” your vote, and two, it would allow the candidate preferred by the majority of voters to win.

He still has his other gig as baseball guru.

That said, you’ve had a clear policy on ads for a long time, so I have no problem with you running these ads.

The Anonymous Liberal had a really good article on the myth of voter fraud here.

I would not be surprised to see him resign his Senate seat after losing the election. He’s not going to be very popular with his fellow Republicans either. He’s not totally at fault for the upcoming Republican disaster (we can thank Bush for that), but he didn’t help things either.

As for Sarah Palin, in a couple of years she’s going to be the answer to a trivia question.

That said, he’s clearly brilliant and I love his site.

They could put some money into the Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi Senate races.

They could spend some on helping people get to the polls to vote.

Both of those could provide a very good return on their money.

Of the three Senate races that are close but leaning Republican, which do you think would be the best to support financially: Georgia, Kentucky, or Mississippi?

I'd be satisfied with preventing the President from pardoning anyone after October 1 at the end of his term. At least then, the voters would have a chance to express their dissatisfaction.

Any change to the President's pardoning power would take a Constitutional amendment, so I don't see it happening, unless Bush pardons everyone in his administration.

The Senate has the power to not seat anyone elected. In the scenario where Stevens wins, goes to prison, and does not resign, the Democrats would be better off voting to keep him in his seat. He'd have a tough time making votes from the slammer.

If he wins and resigns, I'd give better than even odds that Palin would appoint herself to revive her national reputation.

Virginia
Colorado
New Mexico
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Minnesota
Alaska
Oregon

If they can win all eight of these seats (and some of them are very close), they'd have to win one more seat somewhere to get to 60 (counting Lieberman). The best shots are believed to be Georgia, Kentucky, and Trent Lott's Mississippi seat. The Republican's are only ahead about 2 points in those three races.

All other Republican seats at risk are considered safe, with the possible exception of Texas.

No Democratic seats are considered to be at risk.

He’s made up for it since then, becoming buddies with domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy, whom he told he was “proud” of.

It’s also rather pathetic that rather than talk to Lewis man to man, he uses every chance he gets to whine that Obama has not “repudiated” Lewis’ statement.

So much for his claim that if elected President, John Lewis is one of the people whose advice he would rely on.

And my quote was directed at his apparent dismissal of the need for a “health of the mother” exception for any law banning late-term abortions. He didn’t say that the law needed a health of the mother exception but that it needed to be tightened up. He mocked the entire concept by using air quotes. That's what I found chilling about his remarks.

Perhaps it would have been momentarily satisfying to reply in kind to McCain. But it probably would have been counterproductive. There are those who would have felt (even if they didn't articulate it) that Obama was not showing proper deference to an older white man, and a war hero at that.

I believe that Obama's discipline, his ability to maintain his composure, and to work toward long term goals will serve him well as our President.