We'll start with glib, bordering on corny: The candidate I voted for didn't win the election, but I know God can use the results to make this a better, holier country. I know the current president-elect scares the devil out of me.
Sticking with glib: McCain made a very magnanimous concession speech Tuesday night. Would that he made it six months ago. Let's hope that next time the Republicans don't nominate the candidate the New York Times tells them is "electable".
If I can wax serious, I'd like to turn to 1954 and the landmark Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. In this case the Court ruled that the racial segregation of schools is unconstitutional. As Thomas Sowell, black man and preeminent economist-philosopher-scholar-political commentator, described the scene, people all around him were celebrating uproariously, while his reaction was much more reserved. If I may try to characterize his opinion, he lamented the fact that so many around him thought that educational and economic improvement for blacks could be brought about by a legal decision. He knew that true improvement for blacks had more to do with attitudes of personal responsibility.
I found it curious that Sowell had such a tepid reaction to this landmark decision, but on this election night, I felt like I had a better idea of what he was saying. I spent that night in Manhattan close to Times Square. The reaction there was almost a unanimous celebration. There was honking and screaming in the streets past 1 AM. Are people celebrating because they expect an Obama presidency to facilitate some improvement in their lives, or was getting Obama elected the end goal? During Obama's victory speech, he told supporters that they have brought about change to Washington. Chants of "Yes we did" went up. Obama has yet to take office so it's not even sensible to expect him to have brought about change. While viewing the election results, an Obama supporter told me that Obama had a clear mandate. "Mandate to do what?" I asked. That was not so clear.
As repulsive as it is to our senses as it is that a vote would be contingent on the candidate's race, I think there are positive consequences of having elected a black president. I think the claims that America is a racist country ring a bit more hallow. As Deroy Murdock (a black columnist) has pointed out, Obama has shown the black community that they can succeed if they are educated, speak good English, and are clean. (I don't think Murdock used the word "clean". I think I got that from Joe Biden.) Perhaps the Obama economic plan will have to worry about creating two more jobs than it had originally intended: one for Jesse Jackson, one for Al Sharpton.
Regarding the Palin pick, I think McCain is indebted to her for giving him a fighting chance. Is she the most qualified person to lead the conservative movement? I doubt it. Unfortunately, the system requires a certain rock-star persona to appeal to the uninformed voters who are encouraged so strongly to make their uninformed voices heard. Laffer curves and talk about judicial restraint are boring. Playing saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show really shows your qualifications.
I'm finding myself more attracted to the commentators who criticize the obsession with the undecided voters. As a rule, these are not people you want deciding the next leader of the free world. One blogger mentioned someone who claimed to be a pro-life, single-issue voter but was still undecided. A post-debate forum of undecided voters included one who criticized candidates for not giving enough information, yet the voter didn't know the names of the vice-presidential candidates. I don't think he was doing a whole lot to seek what information was available to him. Anyone else in favor of "Get the vote out--of the election process" campaign to end ignorant sufferage?
Looking for a silver lining in this election? California voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, overturning the best efforts of an activist state court.
Shall we end on a sinister note? Obama will become the fifth POTUS of the last seven to be left-handed. (From Ford to W, only Carter and W were right-handers.) McCain, by the way, is also a southpaw, as was Ross Perot. The only other lefty presidents were Garfield, Hoover, and Truman. The disproportionate number of lefties in the last 35 years as compared to first 190 is probably the result of the earlier insistence on forcing everyone to be right-handed. Why have there been so many lefties of late? A clandestine lefty lobby controlling us patriotic right-handers? Is there a connection with right-brained (left-handed) people being more inclined toward politics? I don't know, but I hear Mike Huckabee read a Reader's Digest article on left-brain/right-brain.
Obama will probably join Carter and Clinton in a rather special club. As Ann Coulter said--did you hear she has a book coming out at the end of the year?--it's been as if Carter and Clinton are in a competition to see who can be the worst ex-president.
Today's word's were the (definite article), worst (superlative form of bad) and ex-president (former president).
You've just been mugged.
(This was written by a friend and I'm hoping he'll be getting us more pieces like this at geeeeeZ! thanks, M!)
z
Because I mentioned in a previous post that Mr. Obama has called for a "new Declaration of Independence", Chuck wisely asked who he is now declaring independence from! Great point. Another excellent commenter, Tio Bowser, decided to write a new Declaration of Dependence and I thought it very clever and worthy of making it a blog post: 
