Five Myths About the Election

The Washington Post has another interesting article (this time via Ann Althouse) that looks at the five biggest myths about the election.

1. The Republican Party suffered a death blow.
2. A wave of black voters and young people was the key to Obama's victory.
3. Now that they control the White House and Congress, Democrats will usher in a new progressive era.
4. A Republican candidate could have won the presidency this year.
5. McCain made a huge mistake in picking Sarah Palin.

Go to the actual article to read his reasoning. Ann adds a myth of her own to the list.

Cillizza invites us to supply more myths. Here's one: Obama won because Americans were inspired by a new kind of politician with a message of hope and change. (I think that Obama won because: 1. he got out in front of Hillary in the caucus states, and 2. he was the Democratic Party candidate.)

Eventually I, and the country, will move on from the election. But at the moment a lot of the intellectual interest among the political pundit and junkies remains there.

Obama and Hope versus Japan and Work

Instapundit links to this Washington Post article on the reaction to Obama in Japan. The following is a long quote by completely worth the read.

Surfing Japanese news Web sites for commentaries on the Obama victory from a key U.S. ally, I was taken aback by the skeptical, even negative, tone that prevailed. "Obama Likely to Stress Importance of China," read one headline in the mass-circulation daily Yomiuri Shimbun, implying that the new administration will relegate Japan to the foreign policy back seat. The economic daily Nihon Keizai Shimbun fretted about the likelihood that the Democratic president and Congress may concoct a massive rescue package for troubled U.S. automakers and about the potential fallout for the Japanese car industry. Everyone seemed to agree that Obama, who has talked about withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq to concentrate on Afghanistan, may well put pressure on Japan to send ground troops to the latter country -- something the nation's postwar pacifist leaders don't feel prepared to do.

The most astounding article appeared in Sentaku, a monthly magazine with a reputation for objectivity and solid analysis. Writing in anticipation of an Obama victory, the magazine raised most of the same charges the Republicans had leveled against the Democratic candidate, including Obama's associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former Weather Underground leader William Ayers and "communist and socialist professors." It called him "the most dubious character in history to occupy the White House." Criticizing Obama's foreign policy statements as "abstract" and "strings of empty words such as 'consultation' and 'cooperation,' " the article concluded that under Obama, the United States would lose its position of global leadership and drag the world into "enormous chaos."

The best summary, however, came from from one of Glenn's readers:

Reader Paul Harper, who's living in Japan and sent the link, adds: "Hope? Over here we have a different four-letter word to solve problems: w-o-r-k."

Indeed.

Media Bias: Obama's Free Pass

Instapundit links to an interesting article about Obama, the Media, and the free pass that he was given.

In the closing weeks of the election, however, I became increasingly disturbed by the mainstream media's avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama -- even as every flimsy rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. For example, I had thought for many months that the flap over Obama's birth certificate was a tempest in a teapot. But simple questions about the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks to their own blathering, fanatical overkill, of course, the right-wing challenges to the birth certificate never gained traction.

Personally I'm starting to get annoyed that all these Obama supporters are now suddenly realizing what happened during the election. It was as if their priorities were (1) get Obama elected then and only then worry about fairness and honesty and ethics.

Another issue that I initially dismissed was the flap over William Ayers, the Chicago-based former member of the violent Weather Underground. Conservative radio host Sean Hannity began the drumbeat about Ayers' association with Obama a year ago -- a theme that most of the mainstream media refused to investigate or even report until this summer. I had never heard of Ayers and couldn't have cared less. I was irritated by Hillary Clinton's aggressive flagging of Ayers in a debate, and I accepted Obama's curt dismissal of the issue.

Hence my concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign. Obama may not in recent years have been "pallin' around" with Ayers, in Sarah Palin's memorable line, but his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed. Blame for the failure of this issue to take hold must also accrue to the conservative talk shows, which use the scare term "radical" with simplistic sensationalism, blanketing everyone under the sun from scraggly ex-hippies to lipstick-chic Nancy Pelosi.

Her concern was very slow in developing. You don't say? I would like to think the experience changed her. But if she is like most, her concerns will fade away and in four years Obama will once again be doing no wrong as he runs for reelection. I suppose blind devotion is comforting, but it has never been a path I have chosen.

Google Recognizes Veterans Day

In the past, Google has been criticized for not recognizing military holidays. (For a collection of past holiday logos, see here.) For the second year in a row, however, they chose to recognize Veterans Day.

Thank you, Google.

Obama Unlikely to Radically Change Intelligence Policies

I imagine this is good news for some and horrible news for others. The Wall Street Journal reports that Obama will likely keep the intelligence policies of George Bush intact.

Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration. They say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.

"He's going to take a very centrist approach to these issues," said Roger Cressey, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations. "Whenever an administration swings too far on the spectrum left or right, we end up getting ourselves in big trouble."

It is refreshing to hear that but I will note is coming form a former member of the Clinton and Bush administrations. It would be more comforting to hear it from Obama himself or from one of his many multitudes of advisers. It will be interesting to see how the far left of the Democratic Party reacts to such a policy stance.

President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party.

Civil-liberties groups were among those outraged that the White House sanctioned the use of harsh intelligence techniques -- which some consider torture -- by the Central Intelligence Agency, and expanded domestic spy powers. These groups are demanding quick action to reverse these policies.

Do they have a right to expect a reversal? One could argue yes:

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama criticized many of President George W. Bush's counterterrorism policies. He condemned Mr. Bush for promoting "excessive secrecy, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping and 'enhanced interrogation techniques' like simulated drowning that qualify as torture through any careful measure of the law or appeal to human decency."

As a candidate, Mr. Obama said the CIA's interrogation program should adhere to the same rules that apply to the military, which would prohibit the use of techniques such as waterboarding. He has also said the program should be investigated.

But the indication is that he will not live up to these promises. That is more than a little disconcerting as it brings up questions about what other promises he won't live up to. But for now I will take this speculation from the WSJ as potential good news.

Gorelick as Attorney General Draw Criticism

The NY Times is suggesting that Jamie Gorelick is potentially Obama's pick as Attorney General. The choice is causing quite a bit of an outcry and drawing substantial criticism. From the NY Times (via Ann Althouse):

Her work at Fannie Mae, which had to be bailed out by the government in September as part of a $200 billion deal. Ms. Gorelick left the company just as it was coming under attack for huge accounting failures. She has also drawn criticism for her role at the Justice Department, in which she allegedly created an intelligence “wall” that hindered counterterrorism agents in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks. Conservatives called for her removal from the Sept. 11 commission, but her fellow members rallied around her and said critics were distorting her record. The criticism grew so heated that the F.B.I. investigated a death threat against her family, and President Bush had to intervene personally to stop the Justice Department from releasing sealed reports involving her. Some conservative bloggers have already begun trying to derail Ms. Gorelick’s possible nomination as attorney general, pointing to her experiences at both Fannie Mae and the Sept. 11 commission.

Ann notes:

Beldar seethes:

Short of appointing an actual member of al Qaeda, I cannot imagine a more offensive symbolic repudiation of the Global War on Terror — nor a more enthusiastic embrace of the chronic mismanagement, cronyism, and graft which led to this fall's credit crisis — than the appointment of Jamie Gorelick as attorney general.

I voted for Obama, as I'm sure my commenters are about to remind me, and I'm hoping for the best. He told me to hope! Please don't crush my hope so early, Mr. Obama.

How is that "I hope Obama is reasonable" idea working out for you Ann? So many people approach the choice of a new President as an emotional decision. When feelings of hope and change are replaced with realization of "he did what?" how are people going to react?

Obama Should Move To the Right

Or so says a Harvard economics professor, Greg Mankiw. Ann Althouse has the details. Professor Mankiw offers Obama four pieces of advice.

1. "Listen to your economists... They will often give you advice quite different from what you will hear from congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid."

2. "Embrace some Republican ideas." That's what Bill Clinton did.

3. "Pay attention to the government’s budget constraint." You can't give people all those things you promised during the campaign when "the laws of arithmetic are ignored."

4. "Recognize your past mistakes." You were a lefty senator. The time for that is over. Listen to your economic experts who will tell you why.

I find both the original post and the fact that Ann linked to it amusing. More people than I realized went in to the election with the "I don't like McCain or Republicans, so I really, really, really hope Obama isn't a leftist like his background would suggest." This strikes me a wishful thinking at best.

Will he govern from the center or the left? My gut tells me he will keep trying to go far left and then retreat to the middle to ensure he stays in power. Time will tell, of course.

Media Bias in One Picture

Worth a thousand words...

Media Bias: The Media Begins to Notice...

One couldn't time this any better if it were scripted. Now that the election is over and Obama is safely elected, the media is starting to notice that--shock!--they were horribly biased during the election.

The [Washington] Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates’ backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4. Numbers don’t tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post’s priorities.

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts’ views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.

Ed Morrissey's analysis, on Hot Air, is key here:

Ombud Deborah Howell’s column goes on to justify or at least rationalize the imbalance:

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors — like most of the national news media — found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

So that must mean they absolutely adored Sarah Palin and gave her the same benefit of the doubt, right? Er, no:

When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission.

The hell with Joe Biden. Howell never answers the real issue here — why did the Post, and the rest of the national media, go on the attack with Sarah Palin and not with Barack Obama? The two candidates had a similar amount of time in politics, and Palin had more executive experience than Obama. Obama ran for the top job, while Palin ran for VP. And yet the national media parachuted dozens of reporters into Wasilla and Juneau looking for dirt and scandal, coming up with a tanning bed in the governor’s mansion (which Palin bought herself) and the Troopergate story that turned out to be a nothingburger and was already known prior to her nomination.

Sorry to quote so much but Ed is right on here.

The sad thing here is that I think the people at the Washington Post are trying to come clean about the bias. But even when they try they write it off as a minor problem or one justified as excitement. There's a reason I decline to get a free paper every time I go to the grocery store. I don't trust the media anymore. Until they realize that they will continue to see circulation numbers and profits plummet.

Obama Win Already Motivating Change--Increased Gun Sales

I think this was totally to be expected. From the NYTimes, "On Concerns Over Gun Control, Gun Sales Are Up". Hat tip Instapundit.

Sales of handguns, rifles and ammunition have surged in the last week, according to gun store owners around the nation who describe a wave of buyers concerned that an Obama administration will curtail their right to bear arms.

and

In Colorado, would-be gun buyers set a one-day record last Saturday with the highest number of background check requests in a 24-hour period, according to figures from the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

“We’re not really sure who is promoting the concept that a change in federal administrations might affect firearms possession rights,” said an agency spokesman, Lance Clem, “but we do know that it’s increased business considerably.”

I say it is not surprising because even I considered it. I thoroughly enjoyed a pistol class I took during college and have always thought about pistol marksmanship has a hobby. Guns for self-defense or hunting is not my thing, but as a sport it seemed intriguing. It crossed my mind that I might want to buy the handgun now, before it potentially gets too difficult. If the economic situation were different, I might feel I have the disposable income to spend on a new hobby.

It is not all doom and gloom though for gun owners. I think this comment is accurate as well.

Other people, even some shopping for guns, said they thought that some gun enthusiasts’ fears about Mr. Obama were unjustified. James Sykes, a gun collector who was shopping at the GunRoom in Lakewood, Colo., called the rush to buy guns “a lot of hysteria about very little.”

Mr. Sykes, who said he had voted mostly Republican in the past but supported Mr. Obama this year, said that issues like war and the global economic crisis were more pressing for him right now and that he imagined the same was true for Mr. Obama.

“My Second Amendment rights are unquestionably important to me, but so is feeding my family,” he said. “In reality, you won’t be able to afford to buy a gun if your job goes overseas.”

In Obama's long list of promises he made during the election, I think reversing his comments about "not having the votes" to take guns away from people and going after them is low on his list of priorities.

That said actions have consequences. I'm sure the idea that electing Obama is causing a surge in gun ownership doesn't sit well with anti 2nd amendment folks, but markets are tricky things to predict.

Media Bias After the Election

So will the media be less biased now that they got their candidate elected? Some signs point to yes.

From the AP:

Even after nearly two years in the spotlight, little is understood about the 47-year-old first-term senator's approach to leadership. His resume: community organizer, eight years as state legislator, and less than four as U.S. senator.

As a lawmaker, he has displayed a knack for working with Republicans on a handful of favorite issues. But he has devoted most of his time in the Senate to running for president. Unlike the past seven presidents, he was never a governor or vice president. And unlike John F. Kennedy, the last senator to move directly to the presidency, Obama has not commanded troops in wartime.

Personally, he's a bit of an enigma, too.

You don't say? If only we had some kind of institutional apparatus that could tell us more about these enigmatic political candidates before the election.

The first step is admitting there is a problem. After two years in the spotlight, little is understood... Little is understood because the media never asked any tough questions. Odd that they are admitting it without recognizing it. Of course, in some circles it will be business as usual. Chris Matthews has a new outlook on journalism.

The harmonic vibration in Chris Matthews' leg continues apace:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that —

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!

MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

And:

SCARBOROUGH: Your job is to make this presidency work?

MATTHEWS: To make this work successfully. This country needs a successful presidency.

What can you say other than he should quit his job and ask Obama for a cabinet position. What a total mockery of what journalism should be.

Lorie Byrd on Losing Gracefully

Lorie Byrd at Wizbang was a ardent McCain-Palin supporter. She has a very good post about the right way for one administration to pass the reigns to the next.

Fox News showed a report with Josh Bolton saying the Bush administration has been in touch with both campaigns for several months and that the White House has already approved around 100 names for security clearance so that the Obama team can hit the ground running and the first security briefing will be done this week.

And lest you think that was always the case:

Compare that to the nightmare the Bush administration faced when the Clinton administration would not allow any transition activity to occur until after the recount was completed. One report I saw also reminded me about the poorly planned Clinton transition in 1992 which resulted in many personnel problems and a very rocky start.

She also notes that the reaction on the right has been mostly gracious to Obama.

I am really proud of most of those on the right in their response to the election, too. Even many of those who opposed Obama the most vehemently appear to be genuinely interested in seeing him succeed for the good of the country. I don't see any who show a desire to treat President Obama as those on the left treated President Bush for the past eight years. That says a lot for conservatives. I fully expected more on the right to want to reciprocate in kind. It is possible to disagree, even vigorously, without wishing for assassination as some did of President Bush and VP Cheney, and without calling the President a chimp, or Hitler.

I have to agree. I've been reading a lot of responses on conservative blogs and the worst it gets are long philosophical pieces on why "the wrong man won". No assaults using racial slurs. Nothing over the top. Byrd even keeps herself honest and notes that not every response on the right is rational.

Glad I specified "most" of those on the right. Some already want to impeach Obama? Puh-leeze. The man is not even President yet and he may actually have learned from Clinton that you can't go to the extreme left right off the bat. Rahm Emanuel is not a good indication of bipartisanship, but Obama still has plenty of opportunities to reach across the aisle and I sincerely hope he will.

This impeaching thing really has to stop in this country. The Clinton impeachment by overzealous conservatives started it. The calls for Bush impeachment continue it. Impeachment is very, very serious. It should be saved for the most egregious of abuses of power. No, Bush didn't even come close. Clinton didn't either. Calls for impeachment should be rare, not commonplace.

That last issue aside, I do agree with Lorie. We all, even people who have serious doubts, need to give Obama a chance. Judge him by his actions not on your fears.

Conservative Reactions to Obama's Victory

The web is filled with reactions to Obama's victory last night. Here are some of the more interesting ones from the conservative side. First, the positive take from Dave, the author over at Hedgehog Report.

Don’t get me wrong, I gladly voted for McCain yesterday and wanted him to win and had no intention of voting for Obama, but it was truly more of a party vote than voting for the individual candidate. One thing I did learn long ago is it really doesn’t matter who the President is as far as my personal life goes. I was better off personally after the eight years of Bill Clinton and I was better off personally after the almost eight years of George W Bush. I am sure I will be even better off after a term (hopefully only one) of Barack Obama. I’ve been part of winning campaigns (1994, 200, 2002, 2004) and part of losing ones (1996, 2006, 2008) and life goes on whether my side won or lost….

I think Dave is correct here, so long as Obama doesn't make the accumulation of wealth an absolute impossibility-and you'd have to be pretty paranoid to think he could achieve that. Over at Wizbang, Jay Tea notes some frightening similarities between Obama and Jimmy Carter.

Economy a bit on the shaky side: Check

Very unpopular Republican president blamed for the loss of his (would-be) successor: Check

Trouble with Iran brewing: Check

Energy crisis: Check

Smiling, cheerful national newcomer Democrat elected as president: Check

Career Washington insider elected as vice-president: Check

Russians/Soviets feeling belligerent and expansionistic: Check

Man, we are so screwed...

That's almost a little too accurate to be funny, as Jay intended. He also has a more serious piece on why Obama won--in his mind it all came down to fundraising and playing the game.

Finally, Instapundit links to a rather confusing piece entitled "Not the end of the world." Despite the title, the piece predicts absolute disaster, down to predicting a nuclear war between Iran and Israel. Make of that what you will...

And That's the Ballgame

Ohio looks to be called for Obama. Unless exit polls are wrong, that's the election. Parting thoughts for the night.

1. Given Bush, the economy, the biased media, and $600M of (somewhat illegal) campaign contributions, the deck was certainly stacked in Obama's favor. And it proved too difficult for McCain to overcome.
   
   
2. Some conservatives might take comfort in the fact that during the next four years, everything rests on the shoulders of the Democrats. I'd try to share that sentiment but "New Deal" like programs are very hard to get rid of. I worry how much permanent damage Obama will do.
   

Out for now.

Minnesota Called for Obama

So the election seems to be over, but I'm saving this image for historical reference. CNN calls Minnesota for Obama. Again, that was to be expected.


Zero percent reporting eh? Can't get much more scientific than that...

CNN Calls Michigan for Obama

OK, despite the fact that I am disappointed--things are looking very bad for McCain at the moment--this is just humorous.

CNN just called Michigan for Obama. Certainly seems like an unsurprising call, right? Here's the data so far:


McCain is up 8% yet they call it for Obama. Now we all know that Obama is going to win Michigan. But if you are going to off "what you expect" and exit polls why report results at all? They could have reported this results weeks ago...

Networks Calling States Based on Exit Polls

Hmmm. I may have to stop the blogging here in a bit. All the major networks (including FoxNews) are calling states based on exit polls.

Now the exit polls may be right, they may also be wrong. I don't understand how a network can call a (battleground) state with 0% of the precincts reporting.

Furthermore, if they do, then there isn't much to post about. They aren't posting exit poll numbers. They just say "PA for Obama, 0% reporting". I don't have a lot of commentary on that.

Back later.

More State Results Roll In

A bunch of more obvious states were called.

Obama has won a slew of East Coast states, including Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Vermont and the District of Columbia. He also won all four electoral votes in Maine and scored a victory in his home state of Illinois.

McCain has won South Carolina, as well as Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia and Kentucky.

On a bizarre note, NBC called PA for Obama six minutes after the polls closed there. I'm not sure how that is possible.

The official tally is now Obama 77, McCain 39.

Judge Orders Virginia to Count Late Military Ballots

This decision could end up being important, if VA is as close as people are saying.

A federal judge has ordered election officials in Virginia to preserve late-arriving absentee ballots that Republican John McCain's campaign claims should be counted.

The McCain campaign says in a lawsuit that absentee ballots weren't mailed on time to many military members serving overseas. The complaint asks the court to order the state to count absentee ballots from overseas troops postmarked by Tuesday and received by Nov. 14.

The deadline for ballots to be received is 7 p.m. on Election Day.

U.S. District Judge Richard Williams said Tuesday that he will hear the lawsuit on Nov. 10. He ordered election officials to keep the late-arriving ballots until then.

The McCain campaign praised William's decision.

"This will help to ensure that local election officials do not destroy or dispose of these ballots before the court has had an opportunity to rule on our complaint," spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said in a written statement.

"The McCain-Palin campaign strongly believes that no military ballot should be discarded as a result of a failure on the part of several counties and independent cities to mail ballots to service members in a timely manner," Gitcho continued.

"We believe without exception that the servicemen and women on the front lines protecting our freedoms deserve every opportunity to make sure their vote counts," she added.

How fitting would it be if Obama lost VA based on his parties attitude towards the military?

South Carolina for McCain

So far none of the states called have been at all surprises. South Carolina for McCain, so the total is now M 21, O 3. And all completely meaningless since none of the battleground states have been decided.

The latest from the McCain camp:

Here is the latest from inside Team McCain: Florida looks good. Ohio, Penn., Virginia and NC are too close to call.

Me: As superguru Mike Barone puts it, wait for real votes to be counted. But at the very least, this hardly looks like an Obama blowout. Still maybe a McCain win. TCTC. Stay tuned. (You can check me out on CNBC tonight at 10 PM.)

Regardless of who wins, a fascinating night to be a political junkie.