Late night confessions in the Yellow Line Barroom.

Confess!

"That’s cruel and it’s mean-spirited, it’s immature, it’s unprofessional, and those guys are jerks..."

Sarah Palin slams the unnamed McCain aides who slammed her.

An 8-year-boy is charged with 2 counts of premeditated murder.

He has confessed to shooting his father and another man. One body was upstairs in the house, and the other was outside.

MORE:

Arizona law generally holds that a child lacks competency to be held responsible for a homicide.

However, [St. John Police Chief Roy] Melnick told the newspaper, “We think an exception can be made based on the facts and circumstances … This is precedent-setting. We're going to charge an 8-year-old with two counts of homicide."

UPDATE: CNN reports:

"Who would think an 8-year-old kid could kill two adults?" St. Johns Police Chief Roy Melnick said Friday.

The crime that unfolded Wednesday evening sent shock waves through St. Johns, a community of about 4,000 people northeast of Phoenix. The boy had no disciplinary record at school, and there was no indication he had any problems at home, prosecutors said....

Under Arizona law, a juvenile under 8 years old is treated as a dependent child. Charges can be filed against anyone 8 or older, which Melnick argued are warranted in this case. He said the child didn't act on the "spur of the moment," though he didn't elaborate on what the motive might have been....

Brewer, the defense attorney, said the child "seems to be in good spirits."

"He's scared," he said. "He's trying to be tough, but he's scared."

It snowed today in Madison.

And then it looked like this:



IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage writes:

That is a beautifully composed photo. And with its colors and atmosphere it speaks to the remembrance of youth long past when . . .

Woah!

Take a gander at the rack on that fire hydrant!

Nice!

(Now, what was I saying again?)

ricpic writes:

WOAH!

I was gonna write a poem all blowzy for beauty
When Bissage put out my pompous light.
Now I can't write a poem pretentious and snooty
'Cause Bissage called my bluff: that's not right!

"The United States has only one government and only one President at a time."

Said Barack Obama, at his press conference today, emphasizing the economy and pointing out a number of things that need to be done immediately. Presumably, President Bush is paying attention. ADDED: There are 2 quotes that belong in the famous quote books: 1. "I've spoken to all the Presidents. Living, obviously. I don't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing." 2. "A lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me." UPDATE: Obama apologizes to Nancy Reagan:

"President-elect Barack Obama called Nancy Reagan today to apologize for the careless and off handed remark he made during today’s press conference," said transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. "The President-elect expressed his admiration and affection for Mrs. Reagan that so many Americans share and they had a warm conversation." Obama was asked at his press conference today if he'd spoken to all the "living" presidents. "I have spoken to all of them who are living," he responded. "I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any séances." He was apparently confusing stories about Reagan's consulting with an astrologer with those about other First Ladies -- from Mary Todd Lincoln to Hillary Clinton -- who tried to make contact with figures from the past.

Yes, exactly. It was Hillary who talked with the dead! Here's the NYT report from June 25, 1996:

Although her views on altered states of consciousness and reincarnation would strike many Americans as outlandish, Jean Houston has instructed executives from such buttoned-down companies as Xerox, lectured at such sober universities as Harvard and worked with such mainstream figures as Margaret Mead. Dr. Houston, a 57-year-old author of 15 books who is admired by many adherents of the human potential movement and of New Age mysticism, made headlines over the weekend because of her work with another mainstream figure, Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Seances" were among the interpretations of sessions in which Dr. Houston and Mrs. Clinton supposedly conversed with Eleanor Roosevelt and Gandhi. But in an interview here at her Rockland County home today, Dr. Houston said Mrs. Clinton never made any seance-like effort to contact the spirits of Mrs. Roosevelt or Gandhi but simply engaged in an intellectual role-playing exercise to tackle a problem the First Lady was having with her book about children, "It Takes a Village." "We were using an imaginative exercise to force her ideas, to think about how Eleanor would have responded to a particular problem," Dr. Houston said. "I have never been to a seance."... Dr. Houston said that Mrs. Clinton would never engage in spiritualism because she is "a very committed Christian" and a "serious, reflective and prayerful" woman.

Rare pygmy hippo for President!

"Rare pygmy hippo offers hope."

"TV is starting to feel waaay too slooooow."

Michael Parsons writes:

The complex fractal circular time-shifted way in which my media habits now play out – hear about Tina Fey doing a Saturday Night Live impression of Sara Palin on an RSS feed, watch the clip at work on YouTube, then go home to watch the same clip being shown on The Daily Show, and then read online about what happened on the daily show via an RSS feed – means that my experience of the election had a multithreaded, always-on quality I’ve simply never experienced before. ... [M]y home network went on the fritz at 2am on election night, leaving me with only my handheld Twitter and the TV. I felt positively unplugged....

The advantages of web technology here are clearly to do with intimacy, connection, and immediacy. Twitter is a great way to consume huge amounts of information when you’re trying to understand a complex real-time process.... However, I was also struck by a much bigger, tonal difference. The BBC ‘s snooze-making election coverage was shamefully poor, and seemed to consist of a sleeping Dimbleby and a bobbing Vine, along with a few other B-grade pundits who gave the evening all the drama and insight of a minor English by-election. Broadcast TV, with its narrow tone, its low-brow certainties, just felt hopelessly out of date....

Yeah, well, that was England. We had holograms. And Parsons knows that -- perhaps because the flashy high-tech junk on American TV was mocked on the first segment of "The Daily Show" the day after the election. (Watch it here, starting at 2:48.)

You can tell TV has a sort of blurry panicked fear that the web is eating its lunch. Something Must Be Done. This is why TV presenters used daft gizmos – swingometers, touch-screen displays, even in CNN’s case, holograms, to try and stay down with the tech kids. This is like trying to be an opera singer by putting on weight, mistaking an unrelated symptom for a fundamental cause.

IN THE COMMENTS: Meade says:

"This is like trying to be an opera singer by putting on weight..."

TV: Wait! It's not over until the fat lady sings.

Us: But she can't sing, she's just fat...

It's over.

AND: XWL says the holograms were a lie:

[T]he so-called holograms were simply 2D images superimposed onto the TV broadcast.

The images were in fact tomograms, or images captured from all sides - in this case by 35 high-definition cameras set in a ring inside a special tent - reconstructed by computers and displayed on the screen.

Tomograms!

"If I say 'F#$% Kevin Martin and the horse he rode in on,' am I obviously encouraging rape and bestiality?"

Asked Dan Drezner, quoted by Language Log's Geoff Nunberg in his post about the oral argument in the Supreme Court case about "fleeting expletives" in the broadcast media. (Kevin Martin is the FCC chairman who favors fees for the broadcasters.) Nunberg examines the serious linguistic question whether it's true, as Martin said, that "the F-word 'inherently has a sexual connotation' whenever it's used."

Emphatic fucking may not depict or refer to sex, and may not even bring it explicitly to mind. But the link is still there. Why would these uses of the word be considered "dirty" if they weren't polluted by its primary literal use? And what could be the original source of that taint if not the word's literal denotation (or at least, of its denotation relative to the attitudes that obscene words presuppose about sex and the body)? In fact if fuck and fucking weren't connected to sex in all their secondary uses, they would serve no purpose at all.

Isn't it what we call a "dying metaphor"? The classic reference is George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language":

A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying.

I think that applies to what Nunberg calls "emphatic fucking," a phrase which makes me think Nunberg wasn't interested in all the meanings of what he was saying or (more likely) Nunberg meant to amuse us with a vivid image as he wielded linguistic jargon.

Now it's very easy to conclude that the indignation that some people feel over the promiscuous use of epithetical fucking and the like is a reflection of their prudish inhibitions about sexuality, and that embracing the language helps to dispel those attitudes. As George Carlin put it, "There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad Intentions." That was an article of faith among a the faction among the sixties radicals who made sexual liberation an inseparable part of their political programs. As Jerry Rubin put it:

There's one word which Amerika hasn't destroyed. One word which has maintained its emotional power and purity. Amerika cannot destroy it because she dare not use it. It's illegal! It's the last word left in the English language: FUCK!

The naked human body is immoral under Christianity and illegal under Amerikan law. Nudity is called "indecent exposure." Fuck is a dirty word because you have to be naked to do it.

I think most cultural liberals still uncritically adopt a version of this understanding of the words. When they uphold people's right to use this sort of language in public against the attempts to censor or limit it, they think of themselves not just as defending free speech, but as striking a blow against sexual repression and hypocrisy. That is, they see themselves as being in a line that stretches back to the Lady Chatterly decision....

But if it ever were possible to purge fuck of its literal stigma by eliminating the inhibitions and hangups that the word seems to trail, the secondary uses of the word would lose their raison d'etre....

[W]e should acknowledge that the words are suffused with an affect that's derived from their sexual meanings.

The metaphor is not dead for Nunberg, and I think he wants to keep it alive. The word is good and useful because the metaphorical meaning still lives. Now, Nunberg was born in 1945. That's a lot older than Drezner. For Drezner, the word must seem much more casual and ordinary, more common and also less powerful. Nunberg appreciates the power that comes from sex, power that Drezner probably doesn't feel.

In Orwell's words: "the concrete melts into the abstract."

"Their intention was to use me as a weapon of mass destruction..."

Wright speaks.

There was no Bradley Effect.

The post-election evidence shows.

"I certainly hope this drives a stake through the heart of that demon," Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist and polling authority, said of the Bradley effect....

The Bradley effect was "a product of a particular political environment that seems to have passed us by," said Daniel Hopkins, a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University who wrote a study this summer concluding that the phenomenon has disappeared.

Great!

"New York is a place where people are almost programmed to do things impulsively..."

"... because it is so easy to just hop into a bodega or a deli or a 99-cent store to buy anything, anytime, no forethought required."

From a NYT article about Mayor Bloomberg's plan to make stores collect a 6¢ tax for each plastic shopping bag given out. (In Ireland, it's 33¢ a bag!) Actually, it's not a tax, it's a fee. (Because if it were a tax, it would need approval from the state legislature.) The idea isn't to raise money but to train people -- those impulsive New York people -- to bring their own bags.

So anyway, do you think the structure of the city makes human beings more impulsive?

Retraining people with new taxes/fees is much easier than redesigning the physical environment to improve their emotional thinking. But it set me to wondering what would be the perfect environment for the most balanced and rational thought. The idea that convenience makes us impulsive... is that right? I'm not convinced that New York is so convenient, but I'd like to believe that the ability to fulfill our needs easily would save time and make us feel relaxed, which would improve our rationality. But no. That's probably not true.

ADDED:

What Berlusconi and Ahmadinejad said about the Obama victory.

The L.A. Times reports:

Berlusconi, who has a history of controversial remarks, said the relative youth of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, 43, and Obama, 47, should make it easier for Moscow and Washington to work together.

Then, smiling, he said through an interpreter, "I told the president that [Obama] has everything needed in order to reach deals with him: He's young, handsome and even tanned."...

Berlusconi, 72, later defended the remark, calling it "a great compliment. . . . If they have the vice of not having a sense of humor, worse for them"....

Berlusconi said the remark was meant to be "cute" and he lashed out at those who disagreed, calling them "imbeciles, of which there are too many."

Berlusconi is getting a lot of criticism in Italy. He's embarrassing. In America, do we care about "tan" jokes? I note that the WaPo fashion columnist Robin Givhan wrote, about Michelle Obama: "[T]he implied message is unmistakable: I am neither subversive nor threatening. I am not some scary 'other.' I am Camelot with a tan." Givhan is herself African American, which gives her more leeway, and she's imagining someone else's implied statement.

Stepping back from the focus on calling a black person "tanned," we should see that Berlusconi was making a sexual joke. To say Obama can make deals because "He's young, handsome and even tanned" is to say that he can be seductive, and Berlusconi was picturing a "deal" between Obama and Medvedev. Medvedev, who was standing right there -- and not reacting -- looks like this:



So, you get the picture of what Berlusconi thinks is "cute." (How do you say "cute" in Italian?)

As for Ahmadinejad, who is decidedly not cute:

“I congratulate you for attracting the majority of votes in the election,” Mr. Ahmadinejad wrote in his message, an Iranian news agency, ISNA, reported. “As you know, opportunities that are bestowed upon humans are short lived,” he wrote, adding that he hoped Mr. Obama would make the most of the opportunity....

“People in the world expect war-oriented policies, occupation, bullying, deception and intimidation of nations and imposing discriminatory policies on them and international affairs, which have evoked hatred toward American leaders, to be replaced by ones advocating justice, respect for human rights, friendship and noninterference in other countries’ affairs"...

Short lived, eh?

ADDED: Italy is in a tizzy:

Many Italian newspapers gave the comment nearly as much front-page attention as Mr. Obama’s victory itself. The journalist Curzio Maltese wrote in the center-left La Repubblica that “bookmakers wouldn’t even take bets” on how long it would take for Mr. Berlusconi to let slip another of his famous gaffes. “Mr. Berlusconi never fails to live up to our worst expectations.”

Mr. Maltese added that just when Mr. Obama’s victory was “inspiring billions of people” to consider “democracy, the most extraordinary triumph of humanity after centuries of bloodshed and intolerance,” Mr. Berlusconi instead contributed “a miserable, vulgar and racist remark, for which he didn’t even have the courage to take responsibility or the dignity to apologize.”

A billionaire populist, Mr. Berlusconi excels at deflating such lofty talk. He said that his remark had been “a compliment” and that his critics lacked irony. “If you want to get a degree in idiocy, I won’t stop you,” La Repubblica quoted him as saying. “I say whatever I think.”

How did Disney manage to be offensive about kids with diabetes?

An episode of "Hannah Montana" has been pulled and will be reevaluated after parents who saw a preview complained about the way a character was depicted. The linked article doesn't explain what was offensive. Is there some way to be insufficiently PC about diabetes? (If your guess is that there was something about weight or race that was un-PC, here's the character -- a slim, white guy.)

IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo (who is a doctor) said:

More than likely, some joke was made about diabetes that pricked the sensitive (which is of course impossible to avoid), and/or the message was not positive enough, having contained an actual negative assessment of the disease.

That is, someone mentioned the truth. Diabetes in a child or teen can be awful. But some parents want to shield their charges from it, insisting nothing negative be said at all.

Disney failed the PC test: the only remaining permissible humor is against an adult white male.

Minor calamities in which the lead character is in some sort of mix-up or unavoidable choice is the sole scource of creative tension left for a company like Disney that tries to please everyone.

In comparison, South Park tells everyone to go to hell, and their ratings are fine.

Modika has seen the pulled episode and also has a 13-year old sonwith type 1 diabetes:

Throughout the episode, the character with type 1 diabetes is prevented from having any sugar. He is constantly craving sweets-- even having fantasies about cotton candy and diving into a rubbish can in search of a thrown out candy bar.

The other kids in the show talk constantly of having to prevent the "sugar boy" from eating any sugar.

This theme not only promotes misinformation about type 1 diabetes (because those who have the disease can indeed eat sugar), but it can be dangerous as well.

If a type 1 diabetic has a low blood sugar (and remember, this kind of low isn't like those experienced by a non-diabetic, but rather something that could cause a seizure or death in a matter of minutes), they MUST eat sugar. Immediately.

Now, what if just one kid who watched this program had a friend with diabetes who needed to treat a low blood sugar?

And what if that friend thought he/she was helping by denying him sugar?

Do you see the problem here?

"Hannah Montana" could kill kids.

"A normal win."

Not a blowout.

"I resigned my position as Governor because I recognized that conduct was unworthy of an elected official."

"I once again apologize for my actions."

No charges against Eliot Spitzer. Who must be cursing in private now. Remind me why this elected governor had to resign.

"At an average of five books a week ... I will read 13,000."

"Then I'm dead."

In Kenya, everyone is naming their baby Barack or Michelle.

BBC reports.

Should/must/will the Democrats repeal DOMA?

In the wake of the "yes" vote on California's Proposition 8, Glenn Greenwald urges congressional Democrats to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. [Correction: I wrote "no" before. "No" lost. I meant "yes." Sorry for the confusion.]

Barack Obama has, on numerous occasions, emphatically expressed his support for repealing DOMA. When he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, he wrote a letter to Chicago's Windy City Times, calling DOMA "abhorrent" and its repeal "essential," and vowing: "I opposed DOMA in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor." But he went on to cite what he called the "the realities of modern politics" in order to proclaim (accurately) that DOMA's repeal at that time -- 2004 -- was "unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress." After Tuesday, that excuse is no longer availing.

Democrats have a particular responsibility to erase the stain of DOMA. It was Bill Clinton who signed DOMA into law....

This would be a vital step that Democrats could take quickly and easily. But are they likely to do so?

No, because they're not stupid and they want to stay in power. That's my answer. Here's Greenwald's:

The conventional Beltway wisdom has already ossified, quite predictably, that Obama and the Democrats must scorn "the Left" and, despite polling data showing widespread support for equal rights for same-sex couples, such a move would be deemed by Beltway media mavens as coming from "the Left." Nancy Pelosi is running around decreeing that "the country must be governed from the middle," while Harry Reid emphasizes that Democrats have received no mandate from the election. And, most significantly of all, Democrats are being told they must avoid the "overreaching" of Clinton's first two years, defined by his attempt to eliminate the ban on gay people serving in the military -- something likely to scare Democrats from touching any gay issues.

Combine all that with the fact that only a small minority is actually affected by DOMA's injustices, that many Democrats will insist none of this is worth the "risk," and that many Obama supporters will refuse to criticize anything he does (marvel at the number of commenters here saying that Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff is right because . . . it is Obama's choice -- just look at this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this). Even as leading Democrats flamboyantly condemn Proposition 8, and even with Obama's long record of emphatically vowing that he will support DOMA's repeal, there will be very strong currents pushing Democrats to do nothing.

Greenwald, who surely must be paid by the word, never answers his own yes-or-no question. He goes on to express his desire for a repeal. But I think if he were honest and straightforward and remembered his own question, he'd say what I said: No, because they're not stupid and they want to stay in power.

IN THE COMMENTS: Dody Jane says:

They should repeal it. They should be who they whisper they are. They have the power now. They should do it. I am sick of tippy toeing. They way I look at it, my daughter's generation will eventually get aroud to it in 20 years anyway. It is inevitable. It is a liberal issue, liberals have the power now, liberals need to be big boys and as NIKE would say, just do it.

ADDED: Greenwald adds an update that links to this post:

Simply reciting trite conventional wisdom from the TV is easy, particularly for those capable of nothing else, but that practice is exactly what has produced the last eight years.

Glenn, my observation was that you failed to answer your own question. I didn't watch that on TV. I read your post. I'd like to see you face up to your own question. I think you don't because I'm right and you know that the Democrats -- out of perceived self-interest -- are unlikely to repeal DOMA. So I will renew my accusation that you are dishonest. You're also verbose as hell: reciting trite conventional wisdom ... easy. Bleh. I think you are taking the easy way out, beginning by not editing tiresome redundancies out of your posts. Instead of assuming that something you don't want to deal with came from television and that things from television can be ignored and that things that are well-known aren't worth thinking about, you should answer the question -- which was your own damned question. You asked whether the Democrats are likely to repeal DOMA. I don't like DOMA either, but I know and I think you know that the answer to your question is no. Be honest and say it clearly and move on.

Did this ad destroy Elizabeth Dole?

USA Today says:

... Kay Hagan, a little-known state senator, trounced well-known incumbent Elizabeth Dole, the wife of Bob Dole, the Republican Party's presidential nominee 12 years ago.

A narrow Hagan lead in the final weeks turned into a 350,000-vote blowout after a panicking Dole began airing one of the most offensive ads in recent political history: It sought to label her opponent as "godless."

Why should a religious person reject the political support of atheists? What is the argument? It makes no sense.

"When he was out on his campaign, what went on in McCain's brain?"

I'm going to miss McCain's brain!

Obama + dog.

1. Obama promised to get his girls a dog, and a year ago Malia determined that the goldendoodle was "the optimal dog," but they're getting a lot of political pressure to adopt a stray. Because others cast off dogs they don't want, you shouldn't be able to get the breed you find optimal, in the original puppy form?

2. Some YouTube guy has taught his dog to say "Obama." (Via BoingBoing.)



3. "Well, is it possible that Obama is not reserving his attack dog for his enemies, but his friends?"

"Ahh, crap. I hate Fred Armisen's Barack Obama impression."

Lesser side effects of the Obama win.

ADDED: There's always animation. [Link to "South Park"'s new episode deleted as possibly causing a problem.]

"He's got this big old pair of brass balls, and you can just hear 'em clanking when he walks down the halls of Congress."

I'm just reading a Rolling Stone article from 2005 about Rahm Emanuel, who's going to be Obama's chief of staff. The quote is from Paul Begala. [There should be quote marks in the post title, but for some insane reason they were screwing up the format of the whole blog. Who knew Rahm Emanuel's balls were so powerful!]

Friends and enemies agree that the key to Emanuel's success is his legendary intensity. There's the story about the time he sent a rotting fish to a pollster who had angered him. There's the story about how his right middle finger was blown off by a Syrian tank when he was in the Israeli army. ..."

A finger? Hey, watch this. [Embedded video replaced by link.]

Back to the old Rolling Stone piece:

And there's the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting "Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!" and plunging the knife into the table after every name. "When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape," one campaign veteran recalls. "It was like something out of The Godfather. But that's Rahm for you."

The stories are all true, except that the finger was lost in a meat slicer and he wasn't in the Israeli army. (But he is the son of an Israeli immigrant.)

His younger brother, Ari, is a Hollywood talent agent who served as the inspiration for Ari Gold, the fast-talking agent played by Jeremy Piven on HBO's hit series Entourage....

"After about the sixth episode, I finally caught it," says Rahm... "I called Ari the next day and said, 'Hey, I finally saw the show, and you know what? I like that guy better than I like you.'"

Ha ha.

ADDED: Here's today's NYT piece about Emanuel:

Mr. Obama has been close to Mr. Emanuel since arriving on Capitol Hill; Mr. Emanuel considers David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s chief strategist, to be one of his closest friends. The three share a common policy view and would make a formidable triumvirate in the White House....

... Mr. Emanuel’s stint in high finance and his experience in the banking world opens him to some criticism of being too allied with Wall Street... Since he is part of the Daley circle, Mr. Emanuel’s appointment as chief of staff could also create the appearance of a White House that is too Chicago heavy. His manner can also create enemies, and Mr. Emanuel has ruffled the feathers of many on Capitol Hill, particularly black and Hispanic lawmakers.

"The ascent of an African-American to the presidency — a victory by a 47-year-old man who was born when segregation was still the law of the land..."

"... across much of this nation — is a moment so powerful and so obvious that its symbolism needs no commentary."

Oh lord, the drivel we must now read. Come on. Segregation wasn't the "law of the land" in 1961. Segregation by law was declared unconstitutional in 1954. And Obama hasn't "ascended" to the presidency. He won an election. You ascend to a throne. Let's keep our wits about us.

"Democrats Vow to Pursue an Aggressive Agenda."

A headline that scares me. Disturbing photo at the link too. Don't let it be said that the NYT selects photos to flatter Democrats. Or do hard-core Democrats find that photo flattering?

On the day after the election, leadership battles were breaking out across Capitol Hill as lawmakers contemplated the prospects of new power and opportunity. The quick start to the skirmishing signaled that some of the more bitter fights in the next Congress could be internal battles among Democrats.

Good! Let them check each other.

But Ms. Pelosi said Democrats could open the 111th Congress in January with efforts to adopt measures blocked by President Bush, including ones to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and embryonic stem cell research. She said Democrats had no choice but to chart a centrist course. “The country must be governed from the middle,” she said. But Democrats on both sides of the Capitol were just beginning to digest the new faces in their expanded caucuses.

Just when I was starting to relax -- The country must be governed from the middle -- I learn that the Democrats intend to digest faces. I'm afraid!

The reports from inside the McCain campaign are not pretty.

Carl Cameron is on fire, spilling the dirt on Sarah Palin (and reducing Bill O'Reilly to near silence):

[View video here.]

Via Allahpundit, who comments:

Unlike the first clip, this one does corroborate some of the details in the Newsweek report — sort of. Newsweek claims Palin appeared to McCain’s aides in a bath towel; Cameron says it’s a bathrobe. It’s not clear if he’s lifting that story from the piece or if he got it from a source firsthand; if the latter, then there’s either one very determined person leaking to multiple news outlets or … it’s a full-court press....

I assume this is a sign that Maverick’s headed back to the center, because if he thinks the base is sore at him now, wait until his cronies’ attempts to scapegoat their idol start percolating.

More from Carl Cameron in this clip (which you've probably already seen):



We don't know who's telling these stories, but obviously, there are many people with the motivation to blame others. Even assuming the stories are true, they don't have to be told. Why destroy Palin, a rising star in the Republican Party? Who wants her ruined? I'm not saying she doesn't deserve to be ruined. I want to know if the stories are true, and I want them in their most accurate form. (She thought Africa was a country? Really? Was this the slip of a tired, inattentive person, or someone who is clearly an ignoramus?) But I also want to know who wants us to know all these ugly things and why. It can't be simply a matter of defending McCain. McCain chose Palin, and if she's no good, he bears more blame than she does. And McCain isn't going to run again, so he would do well to be gracious and low-profile right now.

ADDED: Rush Limbaugh is raging about this story. Who is doing the leaking? "Why do it on Fox?... These are the people who work for moderate Republicans." His theory is the "country club" Republicans are trying to protect their own interests and to prevent the rebuilding of the party on genuinely conservative ideology.

Is this the one reason we need paper newspapers?

WaPo's Hank Stuever says:

Hi everyone. I just fought my way into the Post building on 15th Street -- there is a huge mob out there wanting to buy copies of today's paper as a souvenir. Somehow they are not content to stand at the window and gaze admiringly on our new flat screens in the lobby showing our WaPo Media family of web sites.

In: Newspapers!

Seriously, you could probably get a few bucks for your copy, if you're done with it, if you are cool enough to read the actual paper. Of course, some hipster who looks like Mac Guy could go out there and suggest to this crowd that they could just bookmark a web page and save it for posterity! On their 3g iPhone! If so, I hope they pummel him to death.

I don't know what Hank Stuever looks like, but I'm picturing this:



And I'm assuming he writes out letters to loved ones longhand, because if he's emailing and IM-ing, they're just going to have a digital file-folder on some cold, sad hard drive.

IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo writes:

Several years ago I was reading about researchers and archivists who were worried about the lack of permanence embedded in modern technology.

Things written with pencil and paper last a really long time. We auction off the original manuscript scroll for Jack Kerouac's 'On The Road' and search for copies of a first edition novel, signed.

Historians have discovered to their horror that electroinc data fades quickly, or becomes impossible to use because the hardware that created it no longer exists. Floppy discs, for example.

The tyranny of the modern affects voting in real time as well. Paper ballots can be scrutinized. Electronic ones fail to be recorded, are easily manipulated, and can be erased in a flash.

High tech communication is alot like writing in sand on the beach.

I am no luddite, but my conservative philosophy extends even here. Mocking letters to loved ones written in longhand betrays the hubris of the modern, who do not see how evanescent they have become, how easily they disappear, like so many electrons.

I have some cold, sad hard drives that died and cannot be read. What they contained is now forever lost. So, too IMs and e-mails.

Similarly, with one small error by some Google techie, this blog can disappear completely and irretrievably.

It's one thing to believe that building your house on a rock means it will last forever, but quite another to build it on sand, thinking it makes no difference at all, that the house on the rock is just for laughable squares in cheap and ill-fitting suits.

Emotional Condi.

IN THE COMMENTS: Verso said:

Very touching comments by Ms. Rice.

Can you imagine the fury and rage we'd be seeing from the Republican Party right now if Michelle Obama said this country "continues to surprise?" Or that the US has not yet perfected the union? It would be fodder for days worth of classic wingnut thrashing and moaning. And they'd never forget it, either: Wingnuts in 2019 would still be reminding us about how Michelle Obama once said she was "surprised" about the USA.

Yes, I can. And let me remind everyone that I saw Michelle Obama give one of the speeches that were supposedly so horrendously anti-American, and as you can see from my report, I thought she was excellent and noticed no flaws.

It's the new rule by law professors!

It's me and Instapundit, lawprofs, talking about our new lawprof President, Barack Obama!



(If you can't get the embedded video to play, play it here.)

ADDED: I think I've got the embedded video to start working now. And let me just note that in the freeze frame, Glenn Reynolds seems to be blessing us.

"Obama Baby."

"A child conceived after Obama was proclaimed President by way of celebratory sex, or any baby born under Barack Obama's term(s)."

I was born July 2009. I'm an Obama baby!

IN THE COMMENTS: Gabe said:

My middle son coined a term that seems apt: Barackabyebaby.

Wow! What superior slang! (I corrected the spelling a little.)

"Jogger runs mile with rabid fox locked on her arm."

Jogger runs mile with rabid fox locked on her arm!

***

After the fox bit her on the foot, she decided to catch it and bring it in for testing. This led to additional biting. That was a bad move. She had some hope of avoiding rabies shots, if she successfully brought the animal in for testing and it was not rabid, but do you know that if you are bitten badly enough, the rabies shots might not save your life? I learned this from expert doctors who interviewed me at the UW Hospital after I was bitten by a bat. I wanted to know if the shots ever failed, and they cited some cases in which a person received large, tearing bites from a wolf. Don't tangle with a wild animal. Just get the shots. They are not that bad.

Help me prep for a diavlog.

Tell me how you felt about my revelation that I was voting for Obama. How did that change your view of this blog? I guess if you quit reading, you aren't here to answer the question, but -- what the hell? -- blogs are loaded with unscientific research.

I'd love to get comments, but to speed up the results, here's a poll:

How did you feel about my revelation that I was voting for Obama?
	I knew it all along, so nothing changed.
	I was disgusted.
	I don't quite believe you voted for Obama.
	It made me happy.
	You can't curry my favor by jumping on the bandwagon late in the game.
	Whatever you do, I love you.
	Whatever you do, you suck.
pollcode.com free polls

Californians ban same-sex marriage.

Proposition 8 passes.

With more than 95% of the vote counted, the measure leads 52.1% to 47.9%.

"I do not want unity with President-elect Obama."

Rush Limbaugh is absorbing defeat. "What is the point of saying unify with Obama?" Rush is annoyed at McCain and anybody else who wants to "make nice."

Actually, I think he's moving in the angry but constructive direction I thought he would. He wants to define the conservative position on the issues and fight for it.

ADDED: Transcript.

Scouring the text of Obama's victory speech:

Mickey Kaus says:

I was struck by two lists of virtues used by Obama in his acceptance speech--or rather by two omissions on those lists. [Emphasis added]

1.

To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security – we support you.

"Peace and security." Not "democracy" or "freedom." This is someone who doesn't want to seem in any way a neocon idealist.

2.

And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

No mention of "equality"--not even social equality. Nor "equality before the law." This is someone who doesn't want to seem in any way a leftish "redistributor."

Here's the whole text of the speech. I'm interested to read it, after listening last night and picking out the phrases that struck me, live-blog style. The written text always has secrets to deliver up, as Mickey's post reminds me. I'm noticing the elegant structure of the speech:

... tonight is your answer.

It's the answer...

It's the answer...

It's the answer...

It's been a long time coming... change has come to America.

It's the answer...

It's been a long time coming...

[Call from McCain.]

[Tribute to Biden.]

[Love to the family.]

[Acknowledgment of the Davids, Plouffe and Axelrod.]

[Thanks to everybody.] This is your victory....

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep....

There will be setbacks and false starts....

[Let's work together.]

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long....

[Shared destiny with the whole world.]

For that is the true genius of America – that America can change....

[Focus on one person: Ann Nixon Cooper, "born just a generation past slavery." Here begins a list of things Cooper has lived through, which is also an account of the last 100 years, punctuated with the familiar refrain.]

... Yes we can.

... Yes we can.

... Yes we can.

... Yes we can.

... Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do....

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time...

Yes We Can....

I love the form. The substance is very fine too. Uplifting and inclusive.

"A crowd of thousands marched from the capitol to Bascom Hill, chants of 'USA! USA!' and 'Yes we can! Yes we can!' getting more or less equal time."

"The National Anthem was sung at both ends by a jubilant, and very peaceful, crowd, which pretty well broke up after 5 or 10 minutes on the hill."

The scene on State Street, in Madison, Wisconsin, last night, after the Obama victory.



More pics and video at the link.

ADDED: The photo, by the blogger at the link -- Letters in Bottles -- looks lovely enlarged.

At the Gingko Café...

... you can tell us how you really feel.

Is it ever appropriate for the government to take into account that a "particular remark was really hilarious, very, very funny?"

Justice Stevens asked yesterday in the argument about whether the FCC could fine a broadcaster for allowing a "fleeting expletive" to go out over the airwaves. Here's the NYT account of the argument, with the usual details about the issues in the case, if you need to get up to speed. I'm reading the transcript. (PDF.) And, no, nobody said "fuck" in the elite courtroom yesterday. They did say "F-word" many, many times. And they talked about Paris Hilton. Scalia is onto her bullshit:

JUSTICE SCALIA: This Paris Hilton incident was scripted. The use of the indecent word was almost invited, wasn't it?

GENERAL GARRE: Certainly our view is that it was pandering and invited. It could have been expected.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Wasn't there a different word? Wasn't there a euphemism in the script? I thought there was a euphemism in the script.

GENERAL GARRE: The euphemism in the script I think was "freaking", and another euphemism for the S-Word, but they obviously departed from that. And I think the commission --

JUSTICE SCALIA: But it was sort of an invitation. I mean, before she was ntroduced, said, "Now we're on live television, you have to watch your mouth," or something like that.

GENERAL GARRE: That's what Paris Hilton said. I mean, I think the whole thing was set up to be pandering --

JUSTICE SCALIA: It was a setup.

So did these words just slip out or not? Nino knows what you're up to.

Meanwhile, the elderly Justice Stevens wants you to know that he thinks some of these dirty jokes are freaking hilarious:

JUSTICE STEVENS: Maybe I shouldn't ask this, but is there ever appropriate for the Commission to take into consideration at all the question whether the particular remark was really hilarious, very, very funny? Some of these things you can't help but laugh at. Is that -- is that a proper consideration, do you think?

Imagine the law turning on whether a joke is funny! I know it when I hear it.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Oh, it's funny. I mean, bawdy jokes are okay if they are really good.

Justice Scalia would like you to know that he's no prude. That's not the issue. The question is whether the FCC can regulate, not whether dirty jokes make old judges laugh.

The Farrelly brothers are making a 3 Stooges movie.

"Over the years such A-list Stoogephiles as Russell Crowe and Mel Gibson have been mentioned for the movie, but no casting has been announced."

Any ideas?

Montage.

(Larger, here.)

The Juan Williams moment.

First IM of the day.

"Our long national nightmare is over."

How many bloggers used that line in their post about Obama's victory? Too many to count, in these pages and pages of Google blog search results. Obviously, I thought of it too, or I wouldn't have done that search and be writing this post.

But let's remember the original context of the quote. Richard Nixon had finally been driven out of the White House, and Gerald Ford had just taken the oath of office:

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule. But there is a higher Power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy.

Some of us went on hating Nixon for the rest of our lives, and some of you will nurse your hatred of Bush forever. But you don't have to do that. If your candidate has won: Rejoice! Don't be ugly.

Did Al Franken win?

We still don't know. The erstwhile funnyman faces a recount. And it doesn't look like he'll be smiling that enormous Joker-smile in the end. 99% of the precincts are counted, and Coleman has a 800 vote edge.

So who are the frontrunners for 2012?

That's the wrong question. The right question is: What can Republicans do to make us want them again?

And I'm going to put the "lameness" tag on this post in anticipation of the answer: Sit back and wait for the Democrats to screw up.

Live-blogging the election returns!

5:01: Finally! Results. Settle in. Pour yourself a nice glass of win or whine, as you see fit.

5:37: "There's only one thing to take to a Kenyan election victory feast: a goat. Preferably still breathing - 'a sign of freshness' - and with big testicles, apparently the sign of quality breeding."

5:42: Per Fox News, McCain will lose (if he loses) because McCain's idea of the surge worked so well and because President Bush kept us free of terrorist attacks. The national security issues have receded into the shadows, and that makes it hard for McCain.

5:48: Polls about to close in a lot of places at the top of the hour, so let's while away the moments by looking at the sedate polling place where I arrived at 9:15. Enter:



Vote:



Drop by the church-school bake sale:



6:00: CNN declares Obama the winner in Vermont and McCain in Kentucky, which is unsurprising. It does not resolve Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Virginia. So does that mean that there is no overwhelming landslide for Obama? Or is CNN playing us (or playing it safe)?

6:16: Wolf Blitzer beams in a hologram from Chicago. It's Jessica Yellin, floating about oddly. It's also funny how obvious it is that she is being photographed outdoors. There is a subtle hunching against the elements that looks slightly daffy projected indoors. [Video.]

7:00: Polls just closed in a bunch of states, and CNN is only predicting the states that were very predictable. So the big blowout is not happening.

7:09: Elizabeth Dole crushed.

7:15: In the comments, there's quite a lot of talk of getting drunk. Palladian shows us what he's got lined up:



7:18: MSNBC calls Pennsylvania for Obama. Is that a cry for attention, or do they know something CNN and Fox don't?

7:33: CNN Headline News has Nancy Grace going on about a psychic looking for a missing toddler. I guess "Headline" doesn't mean what it used to. Now, it means holding pen for politicophobes.

7:40: Now, CNN calls Pennsylvania for Obama.

8:00: My state went for Obama. So did Michigan and Minnesota. Obama's at 179 electoral votes, with McCain at only 49.

8:04: Per CNN, twice as many voters said age was important as said race was important. But both groups tended to see that factor as a reason to vote for Obama.

8:34: CNN calls Ohio for Obama. "A huge, huge win," says Wolf Blitzer. "A huge, huge win," he says a second time.

8:34: Here, fiddle with this interactive map. It seems rather clear that Obama will win.

8:45: John King fiddles with the CNN interactive map to see if there is any way, given the states already called, that McCain could win. He gave him everything except Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington, and it was not enough to hit 270. So unless they've made some wrong calls -- and I vividly remember when Florida was called for Gore in 2000 -- McCain cannot win.

8:53: I hope the McCain supporters are holding up. Don't despair. Glenn Reynolds had an op-ed this morning saying: "[O]nce someone is duly and legally elected president, you do owe some respect to the office and the Constitution. And to your fellow Americans. I'm not an Obama fan, particularly, but a lot of people I like and respect are. To treat Obama as something evil or subhuman would not only be disrespectful toward Obama, but toward them. Instead, I hope that if Obama is elected, their assessment of his strengths will turn out to be right, and mine will turn out to be wrong." Yes, can we please not hate the President this time, for a change? (Or did I just rile you with the word "change"?)

9:01: More states called. Obama's up to 206 electoral votes... which doesn't include California (with 55). Do we have to keep watching?

9:08: "The Republican Party is getting a drubbing tonight, the likes of which we have never seen," says James Carville.

9:27: In the comments, Doyle asks, "You guys having fun?" Which provokes Palladian: "No, I wouldn't be having fun no matter who won this miserable election. But are you going to be having fun? It's not enough to sit around and bitch, you sour little cocksucker. You're in charge now! In charge of all of us! In charge of our future! You're not going to get to protect and govern only those that agree with you. You're going to have to protect and govern all of us, just like George Bush did with your sorry asses these last 8 years. We're ready for the brilliance, for the leadership, for the change and hope and all that. Time to deliver! Bring it on, doily!" Balfegor responds to the same question: "I am, actually. If we must endure the unendurable, and suffer the insufferable, we may as well have a bit of fun while we're at it. I am young, and may reasonably expect that, barring accidents, I will live to see a day when the Obama presidency is nothing more than a distant memory. And he may, after all, surprise us -- we know next to nothing about his ability to lead, or what he really believes, as he has hitherto studiously avoided any situation in which either could be put to the test."

10:00: CNN projects Obama as the winner!

10:01: I've been sitting here feeling completely cool and calm all evening. But that announcement -- that Obama has won -- gave me chills, made me almost cry. Something big has happened.

10:13: Karl Rove says "Every American should celebrate." That's on Fox, where there is some sedate but sincere celebration of the historic achievement: the first black President.

10:19: McCain speaks (over booing). "I deeply admire and commend him." He speaks of racial progress. "Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on earth." He urges us to "come together." "Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans."

10:37: Charles Krauthammer, on Fox, praises Obama as a self-made man, who came out of nowhere, with no real resources. He says we don't really know who he is, but we'll find out. But he seems to think -- I do too -- that Obama is not really an ideologue, but a sensible, intelligent, pragmatic man who will check the Democratic Congress.

10:52: CNN is showing the crowd -- gathered spontaneously -- around the White House. Are you where you can see or hear people celebrating in the streets? I'm not. The window is open on this warm night, but all I'm hearing is a train whistle in the distance.

10:58: Obama walks out on the stage in Chicago. He looks happy. It makes me feel happy enough to laugh out loud. Michelle is wearing a very strange dress, black with glowing redness spreading upward and downward from a black X across the midriff. The little girls look elegant, as if they'd grown much older since we saw them this morning. He compliments McCain. He tells his girls they're getting a puppy. He gives us all credit for his victory. We understand "the enormity of the task that lies ahead." (Yikes!) He's going to listen to us, but he wants us to help him "rebuild this nation." "Let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility." Let's not be partisan and petty. Let's remember Abraham Lincoln. He was a Republican. He faced a nation more divided than it is now. But he reached out to them. And we share a destiny with everyone in the world. "Democracy, opportunity, and unyielding hope." "America can change. Our union can be perfected." Now, he's in a sing-song poetic part of the speech, with the refrain "Yes we can." The crowd catches on and shouts the refrain. "Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America."

St. Olaf College ousts a professor who blogged about tearing down a McCain sign.

The college did not appreciate his on-line confession of a crime.

Here's Phil Busse's Huffington post item, called "Confessions of a Lawn Sign Stealer":

[T]he oversized 4 x 8 foot mini-billboard in front of the ranch-style farm house... barely fit in the back of my Subaru. But I carted it away with seven other lawn signs that, like a ninja under the cover of cloudy Minnesota night, I "removed."...

[Y]anking out the signs and running like a scared rabbit back to my idling car was one of the single-most exhilarating and empowering political acts that I have ever done.

Today, national politics amounts to slick TV ads and choreographed stump speeches. A vote often feels like a raindrop in an ocean. But this illicit act of civil disobedience was something visceral. It was unscripted and raw expression. It was a chance to stop talking about theories and projections and get my hands dirty. Of course, I realized there was the very real chance my antics in rural Minnesota would be met with a shotgun, or at least a hockey dad tackling me.

Or losing your job and getting convicted of a crime. Civil disobedience, by the way, includes taking the punishment. You don't get away with crimes because you view yourself as heroic.

But unlike stealing a lawn gnome or a plastic pink flamingo, I admit, stealing a lawn sign is a more heinous crime. There is moral and ethical guilt. I believe in free speech, and also believe and encourage political expression. I guess I could argue that I was flexing my free expression to say "shut up."...

I reached the sign and, for the first time, recognized its sublime size. It stood as tall as me. I grabbed one of the steel rods holding the signs; but unlike the smaller signs, it did not yield. I wrapped my hands tighter around the stake as if I were a Little Leaguer stepping to bat for the first time, and I squatted, thrusting my legs.

Please don't mix sexual imagery -- grabbed... steel rods... did not yield... wrapped my hands tighter... squatted, thrusting ... legs -- with the image of a Little Leaguer.

Anyway, what terrible judgment, including the notion that confessing to your crimes on line transforms them into protected -- and even admirable -- free speech.

ADDED: He was a temporary visiting professor, so perhaps his loss of the position -- along with a conviction for the crime -- is worth it to him. He has acquired a small scoopful of fame. More here:

For his actions, Busse could face up to 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine...

... Busse expressed remorse for stealing the signs, saying that the thefts were “immature and impetuous.”

“Writing the essay was an opportunity to explore and talk about political speech and the desire that most of us have to express our politics — both in mature and immature ways, and sometimes a mix of the two,” Busse said.... “I’m disappointed that most readers seem to have focused on the thefts, and not on the larger thoughts.”

Here's a thought: Maybe your thoughts are not large.

Where do the candidates stand on the sports issues of the day?

Sports Illustrated has the questions.

Should there be college football playoffs? Obama says yes. ("I'm tired of all the confusion and controversy that boils over at the end of every college football season, and I think an eight-team playoff would make a lot of sense.") McCain says ideally, yes, but practically, no, and it's no business of the federal government.

What sports will they bring to the White House? Obama might put in a basketball court. McCain's favorite sport is boxing, but he thinks "it would be inappropriate for the president to spend taxpayers' dollars on luxury improvements to the White House."

A white reader feels bad about voting for McCain in the presence of her black neighbors.

Email from a reader, someone who blogs apolitically and sometimes comments here:

I probably won't blab about this publicly, but I have to say -- if I thought deciding to vote for McCain in the end was tough, casting my vote in a room full of excited black neighbors was excruciating. Talk about white guilt. I burst into tears as soon as I got into my car.

I obviously can't vote for him just because it would be a thrill to have a black family in the White House, but I really did feel the historic nature of this election in my gut this morning, and it was incredibly moving. And it was a bummer not to be able to be on the side of my heart and leave everything else aside. I'd be shocked if Lieberman, who was involved in the freedom rides, etc. doesn't feel real sadness today. It made me realize that if I was black I would find it almost impossible not to vote for Obama.

That time Bob Wright was so sure that in my heart I was for McCain.

This clip is amusing me today:

[View video here.]

ADDED: Recorded August 20, 2008. Here's the whole episode.

AND: It's working right now (and I've deleted a previous update fretting about a glitch).

Live-blog the vote.

9:04: It's a warm, sunny day, here in Madison, Wisconsin. A good day to walk to work and stop by the church that is my polling place. Will the lines be long? Will there be any adventures? I'll let you know it due time. Meanwhile, tell us about voting where you are.

10:43: I'm in my office now, having spent 43 minutes inside the church that is my polling place. I spent some of the time reading part of the assignment for today's Religion and the Constitution class. The line was calm and quiet, composed mostly of white people, disproportionately male, though directly in front of me was a young black woman, a student, who seemed to know every other black person who came through the waiting area. She was snapping flash photographs of her friends, one of whom had gotten to the front super-quick by the clever expedient of not being registered. In Madison, you can register the day you vote, and normally going through the line where you also register would slow you down, but there's been such an active effort to get everyone registered in advance, that the same-day registering folks have a shorter wait. At least, that was the case at 9:15 at the First Congregational Church of Madison.

10:51: So now you can abandon all efforts to influence me, because I've voted. You may wonder, was everyone voting at the First Congregational Church of Madison voting for Barack Obama. The answer is no. I saw a young man wearing a McCain/Palin button. He was the only person I saw wearing a button. I heard absolutely no discussion of the election inside the church. Not so much as a single voicing of the 3 syllables Obama.

Watching Obama on TV just now...

... I realized how rarely I get my news this way. It's irritating -- simultaneously too fast and too slow. I vastly prefer to read the news, and by that I mean read the news on the internet.

For many years, I got the news from the paper New York Times, which I absolutely loved picking up from the front walk every morning and paging through. Even once I started blogging, and had my computer on first thing in the morning, I would get my news by turning the familiar, substantial big pages. But over time, my habits of clicking around and through places on line became so ingrained that it felt like a chore to go through the newspaper the way I'd used to. I no longer had the feeling that the news existed in the order and proportion determined by the paper's editors, and after throwing too many newspapers in the recycling bin unread, I canceled my subscription. I can't see myself ever going back.

But what about TV? Isn't it pleasant to take a break from reading and watch the talking heads? No, I don't find it pleasant at all, as that taste of "Fox and Friends" just now made obvious. Too much inane blabbering, filling the time, maintaining a flow, desperate to keep us from switching channels, not to mention the commercial breaks (with teasers -- wait 'til you hear what.. -- about stories that I've always already read on the internet). If I ever watched the network evening news shows, it was more than 20 years ago. For a while -- during the Clinton Era scandals -- I obsessively watched the cable news analysis shows, and that habit persisted for a while. But it's utterly gone now.

I watch "Meet the Press." That's it. Not "Fox News Sunday," not "60 Minutes," not Bill O'Reilly or Chris Matthews. I watch "The Daily Show," if that counts. And I probably still believe that election returns are something you watch on TV. You need to see those maps changing colors and numbers rolling up and Wolf Blitzer strolling around on a big glitzy set. That's the event, right? Or maybe that will be gone too. I was just reading this guide to watching the returns:

Aim to have the popcorn popped and to be on the couch by 7 p.m. Eastern time. That’s assuming you have a day job and haven’t been glued to the television all day.

Ugh! What a terrible way to live. If you don't have a day job, go out and play... or hang out on the internet.

The networks are not supposed to call a state until all the polls in that state have closed. But there will be lots of raw data online, so you can go on the Web, check the returns and try calling the state yourself.

And, so, why are we watching TV?

The suspense starts in Indiana. Most polls close at 6 p.m. and others at 7....

Also at 7 p.m., polls close in Virginia and Georgia, and polls close in most of Florida and New Hampshire....

At 7:30, polls close in Ohio and North Carolina.

Won't a quick check of the internet at 7 ET and 7:30 answer all our questions pretty well? Or, if we want the graphics -- and I do -- won't 5 minutes of CNN at those 2 times give us everything we want?

At 8, Pennsylvania and Missouri finish voting.

Maybe these states won't be anti-climactic. If not, I'll be staring at the pretty lights and colors on TV like everyone else. Maybe. Or will I be on line, looking for text to blog and interacting with the commenters right here... as I do every day? All the flashiness and noise of TV only seems to disguise how inert the experience of watching it really is.

Live-blogging Barack Obama's voting.

FoxNews is covering it live. The main theme at this point is: What's taking him so long? It's been at least 5 minutes. Predictable joke: Is he reconsidering voting for himself? Plausible theory: He's encountering propositions he hadn't read before. (Don't you hate when that happens?) Also: Maybe he has trouble going through with it while being watched. (Was that an attempt at a urinal joke?!) Ah, now we know! They were timing his conclusion with the arrival of Joe Biden. We now see Biden, on the split screen, arriving at the polls in Delaware with his elderly mother. The elderly mother has a snazzy, bright pink jacket.

Obama -- wearing a black suit and an American flag pin -- was accompanied by Michelle -- who dressed in black, a scoop-neck top and narrow pants -- and their 2 little girls -- who wore pink and orange sweatshirts. The older girl, Malia talked constantly to her father as they walked with their paper ballots up to the open-suitcase-on-legs booths. Once at the booths, Malia stuck with Michelle, even when Obama addressed her, seemingly to instruct her about the nature of the ballot. For a while it looked as though Malia was almost shunning her dad, but then the camera pulled back, and we could see the younger girl, Sasha was curled around one leg of Obama's booth, firmly staking out her territory in the dad zone.

It will be fun to watch those adorable girls grow up in the White House... if Obama wins.

UW, today.

A little political activity on campus:



And, mainly, classes as usual:



The building in the background is our beloved law school.

"Our grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, has died," says Barack Obama.

So sad that she didn't make it that last step! One immediately thinks of the famous line: "And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you."

Very sad. Please: no conspiracy theories about the timing of the announcement of the death.

"Maybe a period of heartless liberalism is a needed corrective after eight years of compassionate conservatism."

"But here's the big question: Would Obama be as brutal in defending America's interests as he is in pandering to xenophobes and global warmists?"

Asks James Taranto, kindly linking to me, in a Best of the Web entitled "Beloved Aunt." ("Curb Your Enthusiasm" fans will remember the famous obituary typo.)

***

NSFW:

"Hi Boys and Girls, I'm Jimmy Carl Black, and I'm the Indian of the group."

Jimmy Carl Black, RIP.



ADDED: The album cover above is "We're Only in It for the Money," one of my favorite records, which is full of great songs including one that I think is just as appropriate for election eve as that one Andrew Sullivan saw fit to quote today. It goes like this:

There will come a time when everybody
Who is lonely will be free...
To sing & dance & love
There will come a time when every evil
That we know will be an evil...
That we can rise above
Who cares if hair is long or short
Or sprayed or partly grayed...
We know that hair ain't where it's at
(There will come a time when you won't
Even be ashamed if you are fat!)
Wah wah-wah wah
There will come a time when everybody
Who is lonely will be free...
To sing & dance & love (dance and love)
There will come a time when every evil
That we know will be an evil...
That we can rise above (rise above)
Who cares if you're so poor you can't afford
To buy a pair of mod a go-go stretch-elastic pants...
There will come a time when you can even
Take your clothes off when you dance

Did Obama just give McCain the finger (while "congratulating" him)?

Drudge seems to think so. Wonkette thinks Drudge is evil.

Why did Cheney endorse McCain? To hurt him?

Mark Daniels smells a Machiavellian scheme:

The fact is that Dick Cheney loathes John McCain. McCain went after the Bush Administration for what he saw as its incompetent conduct of the war in Iraq. Maybe even more unforgivable from Cheney’s viewpoint was McCain’s criticisms of the Bush Administration’s incarceration and interrogation techniques at Guantanamo.

Obama clearly enjoyed it:



Cheney had to know he would.

If McCain wins, will you Obama supporters handle it as well as Bill Kristol plans to handle the Obama victory?

Bill Kristol gives you some reasons why you should:

1. It would be a victory for an underdog....

2. It would be a defeat for the establishment....

3. It would be [anti-Bush]....

4. It would be a victory for freedom....

5. A McCain victory would be good for liberalism....

If McCain wins, think of this column as a modest contribution to cheering up distraught liberals. If Obama prevails, I’m confident there are some compassionate liberals out there who will do the same for hapless conservatives as they hobble out to the wilderness.

If Obama wins, some Obama supporters will gloat and taunt. I won't, but it will happen. Bill will have to deal with that. I can believe he won't gloat and taunt if McCain wins, but, obviously, some will.

Kristol makes me think about how I felt on election night in 2004, as I sat watching the returns, fully believing that I would see John Kerry's victory. I had already adjusted to seeing my man lose:

Yes, I care a lot about the outcome of the election, and I'm sitting here waiting for the news to come in, sampling the dribbled out exit polls, and fretting. But at the same time, I feel complete assurance that as soon as the outcome is known, I'll fully accept it. Either man will make a decent enough President. I think Bush deserves to continue in office, but if it is to be Kerry, Kerry can handle the job too.... Despite all this political blogging, I'm not really all that political.... It will be nice to break loose from the grip of politics that has held us for so long. As I blogged long ago, I've had preferences in presidential elections going all the way back to 1960, and only one man I've supported has been President. (In case you've forgotten or are not a long-time reader, that man was Bill Clinton.) I'm accustomed to spending election night seeing my man lose.

You young people who think it will be just terrible if you don't get your way this time, let me tell you: I was over 40 before I saw my candidate for President win.

... Basically, I am a grand supporter of losers. My support is the kiss of death. Oh, no! Have I gone all pessimistic? No, no. It is equanimity that flows through me. Time for a nice glass of win, a plate of pasta with Bolognese sauce, and a calm absorption of reality.

UPDATE: "A nice glass of win" -- ah, so hope does live on! Time for a nice glass of wine and toast to hope! A glass to be refilled later, perhaps, in a quenching of sorrow!

ANOTHER UPDATE: 10:53 p.m. Maybe I am going to get that nice glass of win after all....

Ha ha. That was so weird.

The worst thing about an Obama loss -- something Kristol doesn't mention -- is the Bradley effect. After all these polls, if Obama doesn't win, people are going to think that racial prejudice played a role. Because of this, it's very hard to say that because McCain supporters will handle a loss well, Obama supporters should too. It will hard not to feel disillusioned if the polls have misled us.

"Yes: the heart has got to open in a fundamental way. And you can feel it happening."

"Because this is America. And the world has never needed her more."

***

From a list of things I'm looking forward to, post-Election Day: Andrew Sullivan will stop writing creepy stuff like that.

And now, at long last, The Washington Post shows some respect for President Bush.

Dan Eggen writes:

[A]ccording to allies inside and outside the White House, Bush's mood remains buoyant and his attention is focused on the global financial collapse. In private meetings with business leaders, Bush has made a point of saying that he is happy the crisis happened on his watch so the next president and a new economic team do not have to grapple with it.

"His high energy level and spirit sets the tone for the rest of us," said Kevin Sullivan, Bush's communications director. "There's been no time to worry about any of this other stuff. . . . He believes the American people expect us to finish strong and to leave things in the best possible position for his successor."

Others inside and outside the administration, however, say the upbeat talk masks disappointment and frustration among many White House staffers, who believe Bush's reputation has been unfairly maligned for a series of calamities -- from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to the financial crisis -- that were beyond his control and that he handled well. GOP nominee John McCain's escalating attacks on Bush's tenure have added to the irritation, these people said.

"Everybody kind of wanted to spend the last 100-plus days doing some legacy things, and the financial crisis has thrown a wrench into that," said one prominent Republican who regularly talks with senior White House officials.

"You have a combination of no legacy stuff, a horrible economic mess and the likelihood that Obama is going to win," this person added. "There is a real sadness there."

Read the whole thing. My heart goes out to President Bush, even as I plan to vote for Barack Obama tomorrow. One thing I don't like about John McCain is that he never showed respect for Bush. He was all about distancing himself from Bush, but if it's distance you want from Bush, there's Obama. And Obama had no reason to defend the other party's President, but for all his criticism of Bush's policies, I don't remember Obama taking ugly potshots at Bush. McCain treated Bush like an outcast. Was there even a word of defense for the man who protected us from terrorist attacks for 7 years?

For the first time in recent memory, a sitting president has effectively sat out the presidential race, avoiding public appearances on behalf of McCain and other Republicans and raising far less money than usual in private fundraisers. Bush voted for McCain by absentee ballot rather than voting in person in Texas, as he has for the past three elections, and officials say he plans to spend election night at the White House rather than at a rally or other campaign-related event.

I seem to recall Al Gore giving Bill Clinton the cold shoulder. Al Gore lost -- not by much, but he should have won by a lot that year.

Aides say privately that Bush long ago made peace with his low approval ratings, which have persisted despite significant improvements in Iraq, the original source of his polling woes. Some current and former aides argue that Bush's unpopularity has made it easier for him to push ahead with difficult decisions, such as a series of dramatic interventions into the financial markets that have angered conservatives over the past two months.

"You're more liberated to act when you've internalized those low approval ratings," said Pete Wehner, a former top Bush adviser. "This is a White House and a president that are in some ways galvanized by a crisis."...

There is little outward sign of irritation from Bush, who has maintained a sense of good cheer...

That enduring, frat-boy enthusiasm is exactly the sort of thing that riles his detractors, but supporters say Bush's optimism has been central to his political survival....

We Americans like an optimistic, cheerful President. Look back over the past elections. Doesn't the more affable man always win? Including this year?

Sex on TV...

... is getting teenagers pregnant.

UPDATE: Oh my, is this post ever dragging in the search engine traffic! I did not do that on purpose.

I think I remember every single thing on this long column...

... and I'm not even ashamed that I do. Actually, I love this graphic presentation of the whole campaign season, and it doesn't make me want to curse (like the URL). In fact, it has me smiling about America. I agree with Ambrosia Voyeur:

I'm in the "What? What? What's so horrible?" group.

This is an awesome time.

NPR's inane misplaced sympathy for a housing speculator.

The description of the story -- titled "Immigrant Confident Housing Market Will Come Back" -- give no hint of disapproval:

Emmanuel Njoku thought he was living the American dream. During the housing boom, the Nigerian immigrant built a portfolio of 16 properties in Prince Georges County, Md. Now his family has lost a $1.5 million home, and he faces foreclosure on half a dozen other properties. But he says he hasn't lost faith in the dream.

You've got to listen to the audio to fully appreciate the mushy-headedness of that description. The reporter, John Ydstie, never challenges the man -- whose annual income from his job is $20,000 -- to take responsibility for his absurdly risky decisions. Njoku's an immigrant who believes in "the American dream" -- which apparently means taking all you can get and blaming others when huge risks don't pan out. People like this deserve to go bankrupt. Obviously.

Don't give this man or anyone like him any of our tax money. Why should he be helped to live in a $1.5 million house? Try to picture the collection of characters NPR considered before deciding Njoku was the one to do a big human interest story about.

Obama is asked if he would vote for California's Proposition 8.

A great question, asked by an MTV viewer. Of course, for political reasons, Obama has had to sayt he opposes same-sex marriage, but he also opposes Proposition 8. Here's how he puts it:

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them."

But what if the judges read the existing constitution to contain rights that people don't believe are really there? This idea that it's wrong to change a constitution to contract rights works very effectively in that situation. You're saying to people, yes, the courts over-expanded rights, but now you'd be wrong to reset the constitution where it actually was, because you'd be making rights smaller, and rights should never get smaller. America's not about taking rights away from people.

***

I assume Obama really does support same-sex marriage, which makes it easier to say that what the courts have given, the people should not take away. The more important question is: What kind of judges will Obama nominate? Will they be judges who use the Constitution to get out in front of the American majority on important social issues?

ADDED: Mickey Kaus writes:

The problem is that if the state Supreme Court is sustained in creating this right, it will be inevitably tempted to create other, more problematic constitutional rights. ("Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them," says a man who may soon be in a position to insure this "expansion" picks up steam.) We'll wind up in a Rose Bird world in which almost all significant disputes involve contending "rights" and are therefore to be decided by judges, not voters.

AND: An emailer asks:

Doesn't your post imply that Obama probably disagrees with the judicial reasoning that equal protection requires same-sex marriage? Why would you think that?

I think that probably, in his heart of hearts, Obama believes that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. But, as a smart political actor, he knows the country isn't ready for it, and he's giving us what we want.

So the real question is: When this smart political actor gets his hands on the appointment power, will he give us judges who channel his beliefs about what rights really are or judges who follow a path of judicial restraint that resembles Obama the political actor?