2008 US Presidential Race, Obama vs McCain

[Charlotteman]

Journalist and TV personality Robert Novak has said that Obama's win is not a mandate. What hogwash. The losing side (republicans) are denying responsibility for their loss.......what else is new?

[sean]

Obama's win is a mandate against arrogance; something that Novak is incapable of understanding. Novak is real piece of work: earlier this year, he ran over an elderly pedestrian with his car and sped away. He was stopped by witnesses where he claimed that he didn't know that he had hit someone. Not a nice person.

[Charlotte_native]

On the gay marriage issue, I'm also of the belief that the word 'marriage' isn't very important. To me it is the bundle of rights that I want, not a word. Marriage through the ages has meant the consumation of a relationship between a man and a woman (at first to begin a family and to tie two families together). I don't care what my relationship is respectfully referred to as long as with one fell swoop in one day I can get all the legal rights a married man and woman receive.

I do understand where some don't agree and say to fully receive all rights the word marriage should be included, I just don't agree. I also think it is the act and its effect that are important, so if we could get Larried as AtlRvr states, I'd be fine with it and I think many that are now opposed would be more inclined to allow it to happen.

Regardless of the words or the election 2 days ago, we will be able to get hitched with lots of rights soon enough. Our legal system works in strange starts and stops sometimes, but the tide is moving toward equality though it seems slow to many. It is a right that anyone should have to choose their partner in life just as it was for interracial marriage. It would be unfathomable today to imagine a state or municipality to forbid mixed race marriage, but it was only 40 or so years ago that it was argued against just as gay marriage is now. Slow? Sure. Inevitable? Also assured. Once the dam breaks, and it has here and there, the flood will take over.

Only a year or two ago I would have said a black president was decades away...

[kayman]

As a Gay person, and to be fair about this, I don't think the Gay community has yet come to appreciate the ramifications of the decision they are asking people to make when it comes to "Gay Marriage". From a practical point of view it is a legal status that confers certain state and federal rights on a person relative to their partner. The most important ones are related to inheritance, tax benefits, and the right to make decisions in regards to death. However "marriage" by tradition in this society also has deep religious and cultural meanings as well. Many people who are completely supportive of Gays & Lesbians have trouble with "Gay Marriage" because they see it as an intrusion on this second part. Or at least they don't understand it.

On that second issue I realize that it shouldn't make any difference, but we are talking about an institution that is very emotional and when it comes to emotion people are not often logical in their decision making process. I can see when, if people walk into a voting booth that a completely un-bigoted person sees Gay Marriage, Yes No, in a voting booth how easy it is to vote No. For most people there are much bigger issues to contend with. I know it is disappointing, but less than a generation ago, the police were locking up two men just for dancing with each other in a private club. We have come a long way since that time so I would advice some patience in the matter.

The Gay community does itself no favors by framing this as bigotry because when you are talking about the number of people who voted in California, then you are also talking about a big cross section of the community. I understand the reason for going all the way to have these unions defined as "marriage" instead of working towards some sort of equivalent institution for Gays, but in having gone that route, Gays and Lesbians have probably added at least another generation to the time it is going to take to get this issue settled. BTW, this won't be settled at the state level. Eventually it will hit the US Supreme Court and that is where it will be decided.

[kayman]

Another thing is yes the word "marriage" is the key to the polarization, and until many within the gay community realize and accept that you can have the same thing as heterosexual without using that word then it will the same thing consistently. The current generation of society accepts that 2 people of the same sex can have a "union" or "partnership" with the same benefits as marriage, but just not in name.

[Gusterfell]

Monsoon, I agree completely with your post on gay marriage. People should keep in mind that the civil rights movement took at least two generations to accomplish all of its goals, and there were many setbacks along the way. Rather than sulking at this loss, gay rights supporters should be proud of the massive progress their cause has made in the relatively few years it has been in the national spotlight.

Journalist and TV personality Robert Novak has said that Obama's win is not a mandate. What hogwash.

[Charlotteman]

I do think the anti gay marriage referendum in California was raw bigotry.

But I think a more interesting discussion is why my civil rights are being put up to a public vote in the first place??????

[voyager12]

I guess I am in the minority here. I am also terminally single so I guess I should not care but anyway...... Gay Americans should not settle for the separate and unequal status of civil unions or any other word. It's insulting and demeaning. This country was not founded on the tyranny of the majority and people have no right to decide on a fellow citizen's personal life. The just use another word approach while well meant in some instances is condescending and non-productive.

The Supreme Court rulings in CA, CT, and MA soundly found that the word "marriage" does matter. It conveys a societal validation and recognition that is unique to the bedrock of society. Denying this institution to gays clearly relegates us to second class status. Government commissions in NJ and VT which have Civil Unions overwhelmingly came back with research full of examples of companies, schools, and hospitals dismissing Civil Union certificates that were presented. These couples were not "married" so no they were told you can't have the same access. If Gay Marriage can exist in South Africa, Canada, Australia, Holland, and Spain, we can push it to the federal level as well.

I am getting over my heartsickness over the CA decison. But I really thought we would win and I sent all the money I could to help. The losses in California, Arkansas, and Florida, wiped out a great deal of the euphoria I felt about Obama's election. Our country made large steps forward and backwards. At least CT voters prevailed by turning back a bid to stage a Constitutional Convention. The Catholic Church in the state and others wanted to call a meeting to propose a ban voiding the recent gay marriage decision there.

[Gard]

I'm not gay, but thought I'd chime in here...I think that this goes to show that we, as a nation, still have a little ways to go on gay rights in this country. I fully support gay rights and don't believe anyone should be denied happiness, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, and I don't see anything with gay rights that harms anyone else, including marriage. I know I wouldn't loose any sleep if I knew my next door neighbors were a married gay couple. Thats their choice and it bears no harm on my life by any means. I think that sexuality is a very personal thing and its nobody's place to tell someone how they should be.

Unfortunately, as the CA vote has shown, there are still many people who don't support it as of yet. Taking this to court to have the vote thrown out will not do any favors for gays. It will only create resentment and hurt the gay rights cause because it will be viewed as being shoved down the throats of everyone despite the majority voted against it. I think the best route to go next is educating the general population about the gay community and letting them see it for what it is. Other than parades, I really don't see a whole lot of exposure for gays. Perhaps getting together to participate in community projects, such as a gay community group getting together to build homes for Habitat for Humanity, would help generate goodwill among people and let those on the outside see that gays are no different than any other people out there.

[cpeakesqr]

I'm for the "all civil unions" approach, and getting marriage out of Uncle Sam's hands. But I'm not religious, so maybe some gays have a problem being religious themselves. That's a whole different fight to have, and one that I don't have much interest in.

[suburban george3]

Other than parades, I really don't see a whole lot of exposure for gays. Perhaps getting together to participate in community projects, such as a gay community group getting together to build homes for Habitat for Humanity, would help generate goodwill among people and let those on the outside see that gays are no different than any other people out there.

[Lowerdeck]

I'm straight, so someone correct me if I'm wrong... it seems to me though that the LGBT community tends to want to go for a home run in one swing. Seems to want full rights and gay marriage all in one shot, which freaks people out. Wouldn't it make more sense to slowly build up rights and work the way towards marriage? Instead of the home run in marriage, stop with a triple with civil unions until it's absolutely certain you can get home safely. Or stop at a double with the Maine system unless it's safe enough to stretch for a triple. Slowly work the way towards equality.

It is not fair or right, but it's probably a better course of action for the long term success in the community. Or maybe that's just me.

[suburban george3]

I'm straight, so someone correct me if I'm wrong... it seems to me though that the LGBT community tends to want to go for a home run in one swing. Seems to want full rights and gay marriage all in one shot, which freaks people out. Wouldn't it make more sense to slowly build up rights and work the way towards marriage? Instead of the home run in marriage, stop with a triple with civil unions until it's absolutely certain you can get home safely. Or stop at a double with the Maine system unless it's safe enough to stretch for a triple. Slowly work the way towards equality.

It is not fair or right, but it's probably a better course of action for the long term success in the community. Or maybe that's just me.

[voyager12]

The legal system is our only recourse in the current era. Clearly the majority in CA are too ignorant or bigoted to treat their fellow Californians fairly. The three lawsuits filed over the passage of Prop 8 are longshots but there is no alternative but to keep working the legal avenue. Supreme Courts are Supreme for a reason. Without them segregation would still be legal. When the majority oversteps into persecution of minorities the intervention of the courts is more important than ever. The other side is not going to stop at marriage. Adoption is next and I would not be surprised if they bring back proposals to ban gays from certain jobs like they tried in the Briggs Amendment. The Mormon Church will bankroll it all. We are just supposed to say ok? I don't think so.

[tamias6]

Getting back closer to topic, Obama has appointed a former member of Clinton's administration Emanuel to be the new Chief of Staff. Some republicans have been screaming about him being too partisan and too assertive. But the way congress has been acting in the last 8 years some body needs to crack the whip so I think Emanuel is a good choice Obama made.

[kayman]

The legal system is our only recourse in the current era. Clearly the majority in CA are too ignorant or bigoted to treat their fellow Californians fairly. The three lawsuits filed over the passage of Prop 8 are longshots but there is no alternative but to keep working the legal avenue. Supreme Courts are Supreme for a reason. Without them segregation would still be legal. When the majority oversteps into persecution of minorities the intervention of the courts is more important than ever. The other side is not going to stop at marriage. Adoption is next and I would not be surprised if they bring back proposals to ban gays from certain jobs like they tried in the Briggs Amendment. The Mormon Church will bankroll it all. We are just supposed to say ok? I don't think so.

[monsoon]

Back to the subject of this topic, The Presidential Race. (anyone feel free to start a topic on the Gay rights issue and I will transfer the relevant posts there)

Obama has already created a website that details in writing his agenda for first term. It's the first time I have seen a President do this in this detail and make it so available to the people. This means you can copy it down and hold him accountable in 4 years if you like. No more re-defining simplistic policy such as "Victory", "Stay the Course", "Success", etc

I recommend a read of his agenda.

[cpeakesqr]

Back to the subject of this topic, The Presidential Race. (anyone feel free to start a topic on the Gay rights issue and I will transfer the relevant posts there)

Obama has already created a website that details in writing his agenda for first term. It's the first time I have seen a President do this in this detail and make it so available to the people. This means you can copy it down and hold him accountable in 4 years if you like. No more re-defining simplistic policy such as "Victory", "Stay the Course", "Success", etc

I recommend a read of his agenda.

[Charlotte_native]

Isn't it just copied from his campaign site? Looks so to me.

[krazeeboi]

Getting back closer to topic, Obama has appointed a former member of Clinton's administration Emanuel to be the new Chief of Staff. Some republicans have been screaming about him being too partisan and too assertive. But the way congress has been acting in the last 8 years some body needs to crack the whip so I think Emanuel is a good choice Obama made.

[kayman]

Yes, but how many politicians like to let their promises and proposed policies die after being elected? This confirms, for me, that Obama has always truly intended to make the changes, or at least try, that he campaigned with. I don't think he will hop into office and immediately try and placate everyone, get nothing done, and prepare to be elected again. Reiterating what he already promised is one sign that his intentions are what I hoped they were -- fundamental change and a different way of leading.

[nowensone]

Uploading this analysis I did due to curiosity on not just voter turnout, but the actual weight of registered voters that the various states contributed to the election. I am not entirely sure that I have really hit on anything here, it was born of wondering about what seemed very high voting numbers in my home state of NC.

The key column in the spreadsheet is the last one, which I have simpy called 'voting factor', it would seem to indicate that we have states that could/should have been targets for get the vote out type campaigns due to their low number of registered voters in otherwise very populous places, like New York and Texas, both very low proportionally in this regard.

Anyway, curious what you guys think. If you don't have Excel, OpenOffice.org has free tools to manipulate Excel files, Microsoft also has a free Excel viewer download.

PEAnalysis.xls

PEAnalysis.xls

[Neo]

Edit: - I take that back, seems one cannot upload Excel or zip files, Mods, is there a safe way to do this?

I have enabled the uploading of .xls files so you should be able to do this now. Please PM me if you have any further issues.

Note, please make sure it is a .xls file and not the new Office 2007/2008 format.

[nowensone]

Thanks Neo.

PEAnalysis.xls

PEAnalysis.xls

[Charlotteman]

Television journalist Greta Van Susterin has landed an interview with Gov. Palin. Many people, including Barbara Walters, tried very hard to get an exclusive one-on-one with her.

God this is gonna be rich! After seeing all the governor's pre election interviews on youtube, I can only hope this one will be as entertaining.

I have to admit I'm still laughing about her goofy question to Charles Gibson. When asked her opinion of the Bush Doctrine, Palin squalked out "In what respect Charlie?" in the most nasal tone of voice imaginable! lol

The woman really is a colorful character, a laugh a minute. Lovin' the governor, but god I'm glad she won't be V.P.