Wow, seems like an excessive ad hominem attack on Palin. I don't think those accusations are supported by the facts, except perhaps her stance on gay marriage, which is not much different than Obama's view.

Then you think wrong.

BTW: That contest was defined by smear tactics and personal attacks, from the wannabe theocrats.

Wow, seems like an excessive ad hominem attack on Palin. I don't think those accusations are supported by the facts, except perhaps her stance on gay marriage, which is not much different than Obama's view.

"Especially with Palin in the ring, we can be confident that this contest will be defined by smear tactics and personal attacks."

From whom?

Historically, the only time a progressive government gets elected is when things are really, really bad.

I would venture that this applies to anyone. You mentioned Carter's loss to Reagan in '80, the Republican Revolution of '94, and Dubya "winning" in 2000. All of these occurred because the conservatives were convinced that things were really, really bad at the time.

I guess to them it was, what with all those "other" people asserting their rights as Americans, demanding equal protection, etc. And don't forget Clinton getting a BJ from an airheaded intern. Country's been in the crapper ever since. Good thing the "fiscally responsible" Repubs swooped in to save the country with a 5-year, $40-plus-million "investigation" and subsequent impeachment.

Snarkiness aside, I guess it just depends on what someone thinks is important. I still maintain that one big reason the Repubs are free-falling is because they rose to power using little more than scare tactics and imaginary boogeymen to frighten god-fearing bumpkins into voting for them. Nowadays, they're running out of people to hate, and with fewer anti-gay measures on ballots around the country (because most states have already passed such measures), the bumpkins are staying home and letting the grownups choose the best candidates.

And if you need any validation, look at some of the clowns that have been voted in by those bumpkins----Saxby Chambliss, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Tim Walberg, Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, Tom Delay, etc. etc.

I could think of many more, but you get the picture. None of these morons are qualified to lead a boy scout troup, much less the USA.

The biggest thing that tempers my hope for long term change are voters themselves. Historically, the only time a progressive government gets elected is when things are really, really bad. Voters are extremely risk averse. They're not going to elect a platform of change if things are generally sort of okay. People will actually vote to the right of their own personal opinions because it feels safer that way. That's exactly why Carter didn't get re-elected, why the Republican Revolution happened, and the reason why Bush Jr got so close to winning the election after Clinton. Generally, conservatives don't have to offer anything of substance to get elected - things just have to be going well enough for people's risk averse nature to kick in.

Structural change, therefore, is a type of change that can survive these inevitable changes in leadership and it is the only type of change that can sustain a progressive agenda. Progressives will only disappoint themselves if they hope that good leadership will be their savior.

Remember when she claimed that God would do the right thing in this election? Does she really believe that God would fix that election?

Considering how many religious people seem to think God goes around rigging sporting events...

Ipetrich:

He claimed that voting is pointless because God fixes each and every election and other political contest, because politics is divisive and politicians power-hungry, that one should be a citizen of Jesus Christ's kingdom and not any other, and that no leader in the Bible was ever elected.

Pity all fundies aren't like that, we'd have a lot less trouble if religious people could keep their delusions to themselves.

But given how big the Democrats won in it, is she willing to conclude that God wants Democrats to rule this nation? Complete with fixing the elections accordingly, of course.

I've found some apolitical fundies, like the author of Should Christians VOTE? from the Restored Church of God, an offshoot of the Worldwide Church of God, an offshoot of General Conference of the Church of God (Seventh-Day), an offshoot of Seventh-Day Adventism, originally the Millerites.

He claimed that voting is pointless because God fixes each and every election and other political contest, because politics is divisive and politicians power-hungry, that one should be a citizen of Jesus Christ's kingdom and not any other, and that no leader in the Bible was ever elected.

First, the historic: A nation built by slaves, that fought a bloody civil war over emancipation, and that has grappled with the poisonous legacy of racism since its founding, has chosen a black man to be its President.

I think the nation was built by a whole lot of people, not just slaves. In fact, outside of the South there really were few slaves who had any kind of impact. And I know you aren't implying that the country hasn't been built at all since emancipation...

Also, the country only peripherally fought a "bloody civil war over emancipation."

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a fine thing that Obama won, especially since the Dems have most of the power and that will give them the opportunity to squander and piss it away on misguided laws, projects, and taxing and spending over the next 4 years. Unchecked power in anyone's hands leads to disaster.

In fact, I am all for just having the two parties swap the presidency and congress every four years to keep them honest.

He is going to disappoint you, that is inevitable.

He won't disappoint me - I have no expectations of the bastard to begin with (or of his opponent McCain, for that matter...). I just voted Castle/Alucard out of protest against this worthless election!

I am fully supportive of BHOs presidency, and will not be moving to Canada...

Thank the Universal Unchanging Laws of Logic™ for that! Why, you alone would put the Conservative Party only 1.8 million votes shy of the popular majority of people who bothered to vote in this election! You don't know how much sleep I've been losing over this, John.

Scandanavia of the North™ lives to fight another day.

The expulsion of Joe Lieberman from the party was a welcome first step, one that was more than validated by his subsequent behavior. Another example was the successful primary campaign waged against a corrupt, war-friendly and lobbyist-friendly representative named Al Wynn. (A good indicator of Wynn's character is that, as soon as he was defeated in the primary, he immediately resigned from Congress to join a lobbyist firm rather than serve out the remainder of his term.) We can expect to see more of these in the future. The Democratic party as a whole still needs a lot of hammering into shape before it can truly call itself progressive, but we're getting there.

I just hope the political will to throw out the rest of the Vichycrats doesn't falter...

And that Obama's vote on the telecom bill was a political sacrifice to make sure he'd have the power to fix that and other problems in a more comprehensive fashion. That's perfectly consident with my impression of him; I'm hoping not to be disappointed.