EB,

And thus why you fail as it can't be an assumption if I have arguements and evidence to back it up, as compared to your arbitrary reasoning.

Wilfully misinterpret the terminology and then pick on that, if you like.  i'm not particularly interested in doing this with you right now.

If Obama wins both I can at least say that yes, he truly was the majority's choice. The majority are idiots, but that's why I hold democracy to be a poor form of government anyway.

Maybe the electoral college thing should be changed to a purely popular vote.    What form of government would you prefer to democracy, granted that the majority are sometimes idiots?

So just out of curiosity, DB, what are you going to think if an international event flares up and Obama handles it the same way you might have expected Bush to handle it?

That i was wrong.

That's it.  The 44th President of the United States is a man who, on the basis of his race, could have been owned as property by any of the first twenty or so.  That's history, whatever else you think about it.

Congratulations America!   

Va is projected for Obama.

ABC News projects Obama will win the Presidency.

Too bad. Oh well, everything marches towards God's plan either way.

Good concesion speech by McCain i thought.

Too bad, too, because we could have had as VP someone who would have been owned as property for the last twenty centuries

Dont worry, i'm sure Hillary will be in the mix somewhere.  i'm sure that will satisfy your sudden unexpected feminism. 

Anyway, I will hold you to your statement that you were wrong.   I'll come looking for you.  Biden said within the first six months.  That sounds about right to me.

(although I don't think Obama will go the hard core Bush route.  I think he'll go the Chamberlain route.  Just for the record)

The record has noted all of the above.

"i'm sure that will satisfy your sudden unexpected feminism."

Oh come now.  Aren't you the one who noticed the strong female characters in my book(s)?

Well, political feminism then.  i don't think that the race of a candidate is any better a reason to vote for or against them than i suppose you think gender is, but we're both tweaking each other here.  i simply observed that now he is elected, the demographics of it all are interesting.  Here's to the first female president, whenever she may come along (please not Palin though!).

Incidentally, I have had several people share with me now that the table is set for the Birth Pangs world to come to fruition.  I see where they are coming from.  It depends on Obama's response to the 'Biden Test.'

   i don't really agree, but i am glad that we can both agree that would be a bad thing if it were true.

I have nothing against 'political feminism' either.

i am obviously not being very clear.  All i was saying was that the election of an African-American is historic, whether you consider it to be a good, bad or completely neutral thing, in and of itself.  The election of a woman would have been similarly historic, but i was not suggesting that this 'historicity' was a good motivation to vote in any particular direction, and i understand that you were not doing so either, although i may have playfully suggested that this was the case.

Liberal feminism I have a problem with.

Hmm, well i would consider myself both a liberal and a feminist.  What do you mean by that term?

In other words, I support women being as womanly as they can be and men being as manly as they can be.  Liberal feminism wants to say that a woman is 'as good as a man' or 'there is no difference between a man and a woman.'  It is an apples and oranges comparison and there clearly are differences between men and women.  If this be denied, there follows much pain.

In what sense do you mean "as good as a man"?  Theologically?    i would not suggest that there is no difference between women and men, but i reject any logic which wants to say that either one is somehow 'better' in any meaningful way.  Better at sports, possibly.  Better at communicating their feelings, perhaps.

If China goes after Taiwan and Obama lets them then we'll see if my analysis is correct:  under such a scenario, countries around their world would no longer trust the word and promises of the United States.

i do not think that the messages which might be sent from what you would interpret as 'weakness' would necessarily be any more destructive than those sent by misapplied strength.  We have discussed the message sent by the Bush administration's respective treatment of Iraq, Iran and North Korea (that message essentially being "Acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible").  Well, i discussed it.  You made condescending comments about the Huffington Post, as i recall.

Messages are sent, whatever a president does.

Florida goes Obama.  So does Colorado.  Electoral landslide in progress.....

Looks like two of us guessed correctly.  The electoral system is dingbat crazy, but there you have it.  An American institution.  At least, both the loser and the winner were gracious towards each other in the end.  McCain didn't bother to repeat any of the mudslinging, which I think is what screwed him up so badly last night.  People didn't fall for that nonsense, although some of his supporters did.  And Obama made no mention of it either.  So I think that the two will actually be able to work together in the future.  

As for Palin's future, who knows?  Ted Stevens may squeak by with a victory, but he will be expelled from the Senate if he does.  Palin will then get to appoint his successor, and I wouldn't be the least surprised if she appointed herself.

I am glad that you are willing to acknowledge that there are differences between men and women.   I suppose that now that you are married the anatomical differences are evident.  But I really thought you would have picked that up in nursing school. 

It's been an area of great interest and dedicated study for me since my teens, in fact.

No, but seriously, there are liberals who assert that there is no difference.

And you can see why - those differences are often used as a rationale for suppressing women's progressive empowerment.  i don't think that it's the right way to go about having that debate, but i understand their motives.  Similar in origin is the common perception that there is no difference between black and white people, when in fact there are a few.  Biological differences, i mean.  These differences don't matter, so they shouldn't be suppressed out of fear that they will be used for repressive purposes.  The facts are the facts, regardless of what use they are put to, dont you agree?

"Messages are sent, whatever a president does."

There is no question about that.  Did you see this: 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80180

and

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5090077.ece

To address them separately:

1) Hamas are people too (shocker!).  Mostly they live in the epicentre of this on-going conflict, and mostly they want peace, because they want their children to be able to grow up and go to school without catching an Israeli army bullet in the chest.  If they are even minimally realistic they know that they cannot accomplish this goal through military means, and that the next US president will have a large imapct on whether peace is realised within the next four years.  Obviously many Palestinians, Israelis and concerned observers around the world all hope that Obama will be a more honest and effective moderator of the situation than Bush has been.  This statement is entirely unsurprising to me, and in no way reflects badly on Obama.

2) This is also not a shock.  You have to be trying really hard to tie this in to Obama's victory (he's not even in charge for 60 days or so).  i mean, i know you have a prophecy to fulfill and all, but really.  This move is an entirely predictable result of the dumbass arrogant unilateral militarism of the Bush administration in pushing their sphere of armed influence right to Russia's doorstep.  How the frik do you think Bush would react if missiles of any description were being deployed by a semi-hostile power in Mexico?  It took only the flimsiest of pretexts for Reagan to paint Nicaragua as an imminent threat to the US and call (successfully) for its almost total anihilation.  i sincerely hope Obama will remove the 'missile shield' from eastern europe, since he seems to understand that the best thing for America's security is more dialogue rather than more threats (real or implied).

Whatever, i aint impressed.