Forewarned is four-armed.

Personally, I'm hoping it won't be as bad as all that, but I'll be done with my trans-America walk and back in Korea by the time America 3.0 starts to truly coalesce. Will watch from a safe distance, Biden my time.

Kevin

Here's the good news!! (Betcha didn't think there was any, right?

We'll you read it; did you miss it?

Annie said she won't qualify for the handout...

Which means....

Annie is already making over $250,000 a year!!

I'm bustin' with pride for you, girl. Now that you know what it takes to make that much, learn to enjoy every second of it. You deserve it.

"what will be his first big move that makes voters say "whoa, I didn't sign on for that." Who knows. It's not like he made a secret of the shit sandwich he's gonna feed us. People just didn't care, or didn't believe."

Actually, they projected. Did you hear the Howard Stern "man-in-the-street" piece where he swapped McCain's and Obama's positions and listened to Obamaphiles defend them?

(Link to Howard Stern piece)

But that's the lesson: You get what you voted for. People voted for Obama; now they're going to get him, and all that he promised.

I don't think I'm going to like the next 4 years myself, but recall some Jewish wisdom:

This too shall pass.

The country's big enough to survive a bad president. As I've said on other blogs, even the most determined shovel wielder can't dig up a mountain overnight, or in 4 years. The key now is to think about the future.

This too shall pass.

I can't wait to read your I-told-you-sos.

Oh, yeah! That means my favorite blog chicka's going to be writing more!

I can live with that. Quite happily, in fact.

I honestly didn't think enough people were really quite stupid enough to get us to this point. What a disgrace.

Okay... deep breath...

Even though I was cynical in my previous post, I need to say this because I think it needs to be said. I agree with Jim Geraghty:

"I have many, many disagreements with Barack Obama. But tonight I congratulate him on his victory. I have seen a few critics say, "he won't be my president," but that is nonsense. He will be my president, and I will wish him well, particularly as he takes on the duty of protecting the American people in a dangerous world."

I expanded on this over on Althouse's blog:
"North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and associated problems in Pakistan, resurgent Russian militarism... all these are problems too serious to take family beliefs outside the election. Obama's our President now, and is going to need the backing of the public to handle these problems. I see the absolute idiocy some people had regarding Bush and Afghanistan, and after that Iraq, and if things blow up in Obama's face, I don't plan on being "that guy" reveling in glee over problems affecting the military and therefore the Presidency. There's a step beyond "military" and "presidency" and that's "country", and regardless of who I voted for, I don't want the country to be harmed or diminished just because it'll demonstrate the President's ineffectualness. So I wish him well, because the consequences of mishandling any of the above problems are enormous, and any "I told you so's" are going to be faint consolations if they are mishandled. I honestly wish Obama well. Because that means I'm wishing America well."

Like it or not, Obama's President now, and we need for him to do good regarding the War on Terror, Iranian nuclear ambitions, Russian muscle-flexing, finishing the job of getting Iraq and Afghanistan on their collective feet. Because those problems are bigger than he is, and screwing it up will have repurcussions far beyond his Presidency. I'll accept people thinking of him as a good President as long as those issues are handled well. They just truly need to be handled well.

If he screws them up, I'll be vicious. But if he handles them well, then I'll give credit where it's due. It's the success of the country regarding those issues that matter to me.

well said, Mondo. We can't treat Obama the way the left treated Bush, at least not unless he screws up big time. We're better than that and the perils we face are too big. Country first!

Exactly. I'll be appalled at the crap I read about Bush and Iraq from all the noisy left sites till the day I die. It was poisonous. Terribly, hideously poisonous. I refuse to be that guy when the tables are turned. Soldiers dying in a war is not cause for glee. Difficulties encountered in war is not something to be pocketed as political capital for an election.

What matters is the nation.

Unfortunately, it's not about how we treat him, but how he's going to treat us. It's not going to be pretty. I lived in Chicago when this crowd got the Mayoralty in the '80s. The city literally ground to a halt until the Mayor choked to death on Brown's Chicken in the back of his limo. Hey, I don't make this shit up. It really happened.

I'm convinced America will survive. I'm not convinced that the world will without us.

Here's a link to John Bolton's take; it's worth reading.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/04/do0407.xml

Pray for Obama's health; look what we get if he isn't well: Biden, Pelosi and Reid (in that order)

God help us all, and the United States of America.

Check out this post by den Beste. I believe that he's spot on in his assessment.

WE'RE GETTING $500???!!!! Nobody told me that!!! I'm going to go vote for Obama again!!!!

Besides, Barack Obama's win was a victory for conservatives, so be of good cheer!

There is no doubt conservatives are more gracious as winners AND losers. Whether this is a good or bad trait in American politics is debatable. It is this same sense of respect for the oponent, in my opinion, that contributed to McCain's failure to close the deal. I suppose (and this is my excuse for him) after being a prisoner of war he chooses to see the best in everyone, even his political advisaries. He never hit Bronco square betwixt the eyes, even given many chances. This, as you know, is not how the Dems play.

This along with campaign finance reform and McCains pledge, another present for the opposition, helped to propel the more savy O' Bomber to victory. It is only a matter of time though- how much I don't know. Even as we become less free and more dependant on government every day,(no matter who's in office) when things get bad enough Conservatives will have a chance again. They should be able to come up with some Newt like ideas in the meantime.

I came here in a post election stupor like Heston on that planet, looking for intelligent life. It is certainly wonderful reading Annie and the few left on the right again.

Mike C

Third from the bottom of his class is not rocket scientist territory. We're lucky we don't have to live with him around our collective neck, because the economic problems we face as a nation are historic. Just wait until the market falls another forty percent. Mac didn't have any more of an answer than the Kenyan Karpetbagger. He'll get away with blaming dubyah for a while, but by the midterms his shit should be wearing thin.

Until we see how 3.0 operates, it is not recommended to uninstall 2.0 or any other earlier version.

Shelly, you just made me snicker while waiting on Courtcall! Luckily no one heard me.

Here's some inside baseball...the RNC, still dazed but recovering will soon be electing a new Chair. One of the folks who has let it be known he would accept is one of my fav's, Newt Gingrich.

Also in the running are Michael Steel, Dick Armey and Mitt Romney.

Steel's my second choice; Casca has convinced me he is The Man.

Gingrich would, of course, be absolutely phenomenal. Armey or Steele would be great, too. Romney can fucking bite me.

"I encourage Republicans to rally behind this president-elect and openly express support for the call for change throughout our legislative and executive branches."

-- Bill Frist

Your entry from your March 1, 2007:

"I have already publicly pledged that I will not vote for John McCain in the unlikely event that he gets the Republican nomination. I stand by that pledge, but I'm adding this addendum: If the Republican Party is stupid enough to nominate McCain, I plan to write in "Preston Taylor Holmes."

What good is a pledge if you go against it when the chips are down?

What Mike Huckabee says...

Situations change and responses must be changed to appropriately deal with them.

What kind of a person would Annie be if she never changed her mind based upon new facts?

In this thread, El Mondo and Annika have already stated that they will give Obama a supportive grace period before judging the results of his actions. At least they'll give him a fair chance before dubbing him President "FUBARack" and breaking out the flamethrowers.

Anyway, two out of Will's previous 3 posts were rendered obsolete before he decided to pop up. Bringing up the "McCain pledge" (for the what? FOURTH time over the past several months, maybe?) is just his way of being a cyber-hemorrhoid.

Shelly, her real intent was to join with other hard core conservatives to smother a McCain primary run. It didn't work, and it's pretty obvious she had no intention of living up to it to begin with. If one expects to hear new information, which always happens during a long campaign, then one shouldn't make a pledge; otherwise, what is the purpose of a pledge?

08nagaer, it was the second time, and your mention of hemorrhoids must mean I struck a nerve, so to speak...

She's a lawyer.

I rest my case.

I think that Obama would take us to America 5.0.

Beta, 1776-1789.
1.0, 1789 to 1868
2.0, 1868 to 1933
3.0, 1933 to 1965
4.0, 1965 to 2009
5.0, 2009 to ?

I think the New Deal and Great Society are big milestones that fundamentally changed our system and thus require their own iterations of the product.

I think you mean lobbyist; I'm hoping she hasn't sunk that far yet. Of course, the two professions both take money to argue whatever point the customer wants argued, whether said point is legitimate or not. And spare us the trite justifications for such behavior.

Dad, is that you?

It's funny that Will brought up the subject of "real intentions", since I have a theory about his as well.

Put simply, he is trying to set up the perfect conditions for unleashing his ultimate pitch for ideological change, a la Rocky 4. It starts with him trying to point out how somebody changed their mind about voting for McCain. Then, the dialogue inevitably morphs into something along the lines of: "If you can deviate from pledges, surely you can deviate from conservative principles and embrace progressive change, like me. Now, do the right thing, baby."

No, Annie is a real lawyer, trying cases and handling hearings.

She doesn't have enough experience yet to be a lobbyinst, but when she is ready, she knows how to find me.

You obviuosly know little about lobbying, which is simply a more sophisticated way of dealing with legal problems.

Reagan08: Son, is that you?

"If you can deviate from pledges, surely you can deviate from conservative principles

Nice follow-on, but no, I was strictly talking about pledges, and what our "word" meant to others.

You mention deviating from "conservative principles". What were conservative principles in 1792? How have they changed over the years? This is a serious question; each of us should reflect on what it is we support, and why we support it. Otherwise, we get trapped in virtual backwaters and never question rantings that seek to divide, instead of unite.

The term "Conservative" today can mean many things; I belong to the Izaak Walton league, so I'm pro-gun and pro-conservationist. I don't support corn ethanol subsidies but do support expanded wind/solar/geothermal energy supplies. Like McCain, I believe the religious right holds too much sway over the GOP, though I was brought up Southern Baptist and I'm a regular churchgoer. Does the above make me a conservative or a progressive? I take a stand on each issue solely on its merits, and have stronger feelings about some issues than others. I have not belonged to a party since the Republican party left me in 2000. As to the level of discourse, people here might find a reading of public and private letters by our nation's Founders refreshing and exemplars for how we might go about debate and rational exchange of ideas.

Abe Lincoln once said, "Political parties are like two drunk men who fight their way into each other's coats." Clearly, the Republican and Democratic parties have changed substantively since his day. There is the oft-mentioned plithy "If you were not a Democrat before you were 30, you have no heart. If you were not a Republican after 30, you have no brain." To that, I would add, "If you did not become an independent in the following years, you have no capacity to think for yourself".

Shelly said:

You obviuosly know little about lobbying, which is simply a more sophisticated way of dealing with legal problems.

Lobbying is a way for monied interests to subvert the democratic process, plain and simple. You can try to paint it in the most flattering terms you can; we expect that attempt from you, as a good lobbyist is first and foremost a good propagandist.

The legal profession is too often prostituted to subvert the judicial process. There are those who do the profession justice, of course, it's just those 95% of the lawyers that make the good 5% look bad. "Use the force", Annika...

Is Obama planning a gestapo-like civilian national security force?

No, Will, lobbying is not "...a way for monied interests to subvert the democratic process", necessarily.

Often times, the non-monied people engage lobbyists to influence things for the better good. Other times, lobbyists just try to keep the process democratic in the face of those who would pervert the process. I do that often these days, just tring to get the system to work properly.

You attitude is typical of the "progressives" who somehow imagine that homeowners association representatives and union officals are not lobbyists and only seek "righteous" results. Hogwash.

You need to learn all the good that lobbyists do by properly educating elected and appointed officals on the points of view in a way that their underpaid and overworked staffs cannot.

Since there are usually lobbyists on both sides of any major issue, the decison maker, like a judge, IF HONEST, benefits by the input and information.

Don't be so quick to criticize lobbying; it is legal, it is useful, and it is moral, if done correctly. It is just another form of advocacy, a principle upon which our republic was founded.

Here is an ironic twist. Soon to be blogged about on soulparking. Checking into the Venetian Casino in Macau. Chinese guy checking me in asks, "Are you American?"

"Why yes," I say.

"You must be saddened for your country," he says.

"What you mean?"

"Things must be bad if you are voting for a black president. You must be very desperate."

I was a little pissed off. "We are not desperate and we are not ashamed."

He laughed a little to get rid of tension. "Hey don't worry. Don't get mad. I am ashamed. I am ashamed of the party."

I was quiet for a bit. "What party?"

"Communist party."

I took my room key quickly and left for my room.

Russia and China are using this - because Obama is black to show that we are weak. I am seeing this reaction a lot lately - in my Hong Kong office. Nobody can understand why Americans are happy. They see it as a sign of disgrace.

Fuckers.

And, your point is...?

"Lobbying is a way for monied interests to subvert the democratic process, plain and simple."

Oh grow the hell up. I assume you consider people who advocate for things you agree with not to be lobbyists--THEY serve the "public interest," while the eeeeevil lobbyists serve "special interests."

Seriously, are you kidding me? Lobbying is how people provide input to and seek to influence the government that is supposed to answer to and be accountable to them. It's protected by the First Amendment: you know, that little thing about petitioning government for redress of grievances?

Lobbying government does not "subvert the democratic process"; rather, it IS the democratic process. To purport to take lobbying out of politics is to take POLITICS out of politics, to hand us all over to the self-anointed experts.

Shelley sayeth;

No, Will, lobbying is not "...a way for monied interests to subvert the democratic process", necessarily.

Important qualifier. I have no doubt that there are a few lobbyist, likely working for non-profits, that do not engage in such subversion.

Often times, the non-monied people engage lobbyists to influence things for the better good. Other times, lobbyists just try to keep the process democratic in the face of those who would pervert the process.

I.E, other lobbyists.

Lobbying government does not "subvert the democratic process"; rather, it IS the democratic process.

What a scary thought. Instead of listening to their constituents, congress is incessantly bombarded with special interest propaganda by hired guns. Yes, I realize it happens on both sides, but the side with the most money gets the biggest guns, so I have no illusions of this being much more than buying influence.

You need to learn all the good that lobbyists do by properly educating elected and appointed officals on the points of view in a way that their underpaid and overworked staffs cannot.

Of course, a lobbyist is going to be completely one-sided, so the education is anything but balanced.

Don't be so quick to criticize lobbying; it is legal, it is useful, and it is moral, if done correctly.

Slavery used to be legal and considered moral as well. The people I know who I consider moral here near DC don't have lobbyists over for dinner.

Now I don't automatically consider you a sleaze lobbyist, because I don't know your specifics, and you don't seem to be bereft of morals (though you do seem to revel in high levels of remuneration). So don't assume what I say is a personal insult directed at you.

Dave spoketh;

To purport to take lobbying out of politics is to take POLITICS out of politics,

So you are saying politics is intrinsically bound to monied influence pedaling? A sad statement; I see (some but not all) lobbying as a low grade form of corruption. YMMV.

to hand us all over to the self-anointed experts.

Using your example of courts and judges, court-appointed experts are brought in to provide specialized testimony about particular knowledge domains. Congress can and does do something similar when they hold hearings or otherwise invite experts in for testimony. This is open, transparent, and IMO closest to the way the Founders would have wanted it. Are their 'personalities' that sometimes come in for such testimony? Sure, but the vast majority are experts in their field, and often the subject matter experts from the current Administration.

I've visited my State Senator and Delegate on matters that I felt important to communicate directly. No one paid me, and I put together the materials I shared with them. I did have to answer questions they posed from lobbyists on the other side of the issue, but being prepared makes providing the answers in a simple but referenced manner (not unlike this approach) easy to understand and effective. It also doesn't hurt that I've interacted with them at public input sessions when they were at the county supervisor level. So I believe most non-specialized issues can be addressed by citizens, with the rest addressed by testimony from non-vested experts.

Wow, I go away for 2 weeks and there's 39 comments on the definition of LOBBYING? What's next? Can we get a debate going on Gilded Age Tariff policy? How about Whig vs. Democrat positions on internal improvements and the Erie Canal? That's gotta be worth another 40 at least.

Maximum Leader: I actually considered your idea originally, but decided that the New Deal and Great Societies were patches, not entirely new versions.

Hello Annika,

Welcome back. I hope you career is moving fwd and that you have a job with a good firm doing the kind of law that you enjoy.

So, it looks like all you folks have been marginalized and now are in the cheap seats taking pot shots and hoping for the "I told you so's"

Well, I told you so and was derided and had all aspects of my character beschmerched. That is of course the RW way so I added more oil to my feathers and toiled on.

Obama is actually a pretty middle of the road guy when you look at him from where Bill Ayers and I stand. (To talk about radicals and hidden communists under rocks is way reto Annie, I think you born 60 years too late. Did I ever tell you I had a business associate who worked nights as Roy Cohn's driver? Or that my best friend was in the Weather Underground and knew Bill and Bernadine pretty well.)Obama is hardly a socialist, what a joke that lie was, and if redistributing wealth is a socialist construct then you need your collective heads examined. All States redistribute wealth. Exon's wealth is redistributed to every Alaskan (And BTW , what is that airhead going to do about her budget with oil under 50/barrel?) her whole state is a socialist den as far as I can tell, rife with wealth re-distribution, as is, of course EVERY state.

We shall see how things go. I am optimistic. It can't be worse than it was.

Oh, and a big shout out to SHelly and Casket who still seem lashed to each other like Tony and Sidney. Bicker bicker, kiss hug bicker, hug, yank, bicker kiss. They are a cute couple, too bad for you two that Prop 8 won.

Seriously, how is your son Casca? I hope he is out of the fray and has stayed safe and whole.

I wish you all could have been on the subway with me on Wed where this large, loudmouthed black women was going on and on about the fact that now there ain't no more white house, 'cause it now the black house, ( I think this was on the heels of the AG anouncement) that nobody be telling her to do no Rosa Parks, the white folks be sitting in the back now, baby"

It would have warmed your hearts.

Damn it, Annie. Every time I think you've really given up on blogging you pop up for two weeks, then disappear before anyone figures it out. Shit. I finally added you to my reader, but I'm betting it'll be months before you wander back by here.

Strawman. Nice to see you, you disgusting, pernicious pinko. Hey, did you hear that the Berlin Wall fell? (I mention this only because I suspect that, even after all these years, it still makes you cry.)

Isn't it wonderful that the same group that gave the election to Bother Obama sunk Prop 8.

But are the Gays picketing and marching around in Watts? Hell no they aren't because their honky asses would be grasses.

Instead, they f*ck up traffic in Los Angeles, not once, not twice but thrice, during rush hour and, in the process, alientate about half of their former supporters who never want to hear from those schmucks again.

That's why I love politics. Hurry up Annie and make your bones in the trial court so you can get to the fun stuff...

p90x,p90x workout or p90x home fitness is a home exercise system developed by Tony Horton in conjunction with Beachbody and director Mason Bendewald. It claims to improve physical fitness in 90 days through a rigorous segmented training