Red, Blue and Purple

The lefties in Europe are rejoicing because they think an Obama presidency relieves all of them from teh guilt of the excesses of colonalism

chandra... what the fuck? you just clearly hate the US... we can do no right.

I have to laugh, because in some ways this election proves that some people really do just hate the US for the fact that we are the US. They blather on and on about how we would never elect a minority into the Presidency, and when we do, the criticism changes.

Please, stuff a sock in it.

PS, Harish, did you mean McCain's speech? Cause I thought McCain sounded sincere and his speech was pretty good. And I really do not like him.

phew again. i was holding my breath there for a day.

@ Chandra: I really don't get you there! Why should the lefties rejoice at this choice? What do you imply?

@ Smallsquirrel
You do seem to have got Chandra's meaning well enough to abuse him. Pray enlighten me... And no, I was not talking about McCain but Bush. McCain was very gracious...

[personal attack deleted]

Harish:

Obama comes with a left of centre stratgey to deal with many of the issues that confront the US and world today. Europeans feel comfortable with that. How he performs, nobody knows. But if one looks at his flip flopping through the year, one cannot trust this guy

Barak find himself in a most unenviable position. He has raised so may expectations and promised so many things and realities are so dark that his honeymoon might be over before it begins.

Bush has dug such a big hole for him that it might consume bulk for his term just to get past it.

Bush has lowered the bar so low in American politics that election of anybody would surprise anyone anymore.

Barak's distractors wouldn't wait. Count on them to throw ideological gridlocks and distractions to sidetrack him and consume his term.

His Leftist constituencies are not known for patience or forgivence - for them, glass half-full will always be glass half-empty, a source of bitterness and counter campaigns. His rightist ditractors are not known for civility and bi-partisanship - so nothing that Barak does will be good enough for his friends or foes.

For Indians, the honeymoon would be over as soon as Barak makes his anti-outsourcing moves or pro-pakistan moves which he is committed to pursue. Pakistan has been pushed towards reconciliation with India precisely because Pakistan has been on the brink of failure politically, economically and militarily - If Barak seeks to rescue Pakistan economically or militarily as America's Foreign policy establishment will force him to do in the name of winning people of pakistan for war on al queda, Barak can kiss the Indian honeymoon goodbye.

Blacks will find that Barak is no massiaha, but rather an Uncle Tom. The moment Barak makes any move to empower Blacks, dominant establishment will vitiate racial atmophere and bi-partisanship. Barak will be seen empowering same old political and ideological establishment that has used blacks but left blacks behind.

In a way, this is not a victory for Barak, but rather a defeat of Bush. Americans, having elected Bush twice, feel redeemed in Barak's victory - count on them to exploit how liberated America and americans are. World at large that felt alienated and slighted by Bush, feels relieved and see hope in Barak. But America's foreign policy rarely changes dramatically no matter who occupies white-house. Foreign policy establishment has a life of its own that is independent of political establishment.

But today is a Barak's day. His moment in history. His supporters deserve to savor it while it lasts.

kerty.. you just called Obama an Uncle Tom? Those are fighting words in most black communities so I would really think about whether or not you have evidence to back that up or if you are just being inflammatory and judgmental with nothing to base it on.

SS to Kerty:

"or if you are just being inflammatory and judgmental with nothing to base it on."

SS, its a pretty inflamed case of Attention Seeking Syndrome; disorder really, but ASS is a better acronym!

Sure, it is time to celebrate because a black man has won, but except for the color of the skin, everything else has to conform to the culture of middle class Americans (read white). Like during the acceptance speech, he had to come out with his wife and kids holding hands, and kiss Michelle on the lips (front page pic in TOI). Well, in India, pecking on lips was taboo even in movies till recently. We don't have Manmohan or Advani come out with their wives during acceptance, let alone kissing them on the lips.

We have our own Bobby Jindal who not only converted to Christianity, but also forced his hapless wife to do the same (of course, she had no choice but to oblige). Tomorrow, if he were to become president, he too would go through the same rigmarole. If tomorrow, he does become the President of the US (and I hope not), would I be happy about that? Not at all. His acts (on and off stage) would be tightly orchestrated by the requirements of his having to conform to his adopted culture (however alien and divorced it is from his native one). He, or anyone else for that matter, has no choice.

While the US does provide for opportunity for people with colored skin, it only does it as far as they shed all their trappings of their own culture and slip into those essentially dictated by the whites.

I don't really call that progress.

ss, in your opinion, what did Jesse Jackson mean by cutting off Obama's nuts and that he's talking down to black people? Was that perhaps not a hint at the Uncle Tom-like behavior?

Let me ask you one question. How do the Democrats/liberals/progressives perceive those Republican blacks who have risen to power - Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas etc.?

I'll admit it now, plainly and clearly.My hope was that Obama would win yesterday's election in the US. Not because he was a democrat, not because he will be the first African-American elected president of the United States, but simply because I believe he is the right man for the challenging job ahead of us all. Yes not just the US but us, the world.

While it is true what Lezdius said, that you have to be conformist to an extent, I think this is not a major affliction as it is the case with every democracy.

I do not hold this Uncle Tom theory good, a. it IS a racial slur and b. Obama is bigger than that,Jesse Jackson's diatribe not withstanding.

Obama made comments to the effect that he would intervene in Kashmir. Clearly unacceptable.

He also said he would block outsourcing of jobs overseas. The fact is that Indian labour inputs to the US economy help not only to more affordably sustain other jobs in the US economy, but also to create new ones. If you take those Indian labour inputs away, then all of that disappears. Obama's rhetoric displays ignorance on that.

India is not the only country putting its people to work through outsourcing. The entire world is doing it, including the developing world. If Obama enacts policies that shut out the entire world, then the rest of the countries of the world will similarly enact policies that shut out the US. It's that simple.

Who's going to buy all the T-bills that the US Treasury auctions off to borrow money through, to finance current US spending levels, and to service its existing debt? Who's going to pay for Social Security?

Obama believes in a beggar-thy-neighbor approach that will only create a backlash against the US, while damaging the US economy in the bargain. Once the novelty of being the first black guy in the Oval Office wears off, he's going to have to get to the practical business of governance, and figure out how to deliver on his promises. He's made every kind of promise imaginable to get himself elected, but it's one thing to make promises and quite another thing to keep them.

One good thing about Obama's election to the highest American office, however, is that it can send a signal that the age of Euro-centrism is over.

Harish

"I do not hold this Uncle Tom theory good, a. it IS a racial slur"

Its like believing there is no such thing as treason and therefore calling anyone a traitor is a slur.

BEING an uncle tom is a racial slur, not calling out an uncle Tom.

Using blacks as a captive constituency for personal, political or ideological aggrandizement, that leaves blacks nowhere but behind every other group in term of opportunities and progress, is akin to BEING an Uncle Tom. One may argue that Obama presidency will break that barrier and not be Uncle Tom - and my position is that he has no option but to be one.

Ledzeus:

"except for the color of the skin, everything else has to conform to the culture of middle class Americans (read white). Like during the acceptance speech, he had to come out with his wife and kids holding hands, and kiss Michelle on the lips (front page pic in TOI). Well, in India, pecking on lips was taboo even in movies till recently. We don't have Manmohan or Advani come out with their wives during acceptance, let alone kissing them on the lips.""

how awful! kissing his wife on the lips and holding hands! ledzius, i suspect this might have been a deliberate attempt to insult indian culture and tradition. TOI of course, like all liberal media, as Chandra has pointed out, is complicit in insulting Hindu sensitivities. Were you thinking of lodging a formal complaint or perhaps even a lawsuit to stop such provocative gestures in public?

Since when is kissing specifically a Hindu sensitivity? Seems that way across the 3rd world. Try that in the Islamic world and see what happens.

"except for the color of the skin, everything else has to conform to the culture of middle class Americans (read white). Like during the acceptance speech, he had to come out with his wife and kids holding hands, and kiss Michelle on the lips (front page pic in TOI)."

Hmmm...well, if Obama arrives in India and kisses his wife as he gets off the plane thus "insulting" India, it would be something different.

But what he does in his own country is surely his concern and the concern of his country-men and women. And, we're totally fine with it.

No, that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The point is, such carefully orchestrated gestures are almost a requirement there. Let's say Bobby Jindal becomes president there (I know he can't since he wasn't born there). Let's say there is something Indian in him which makes him queasy in kissing his wife in public. Or let's say, his wife wants to wear a saree at the acceptance speech. Well, they would have no choice but to kiss each other, and she would have to wear the same kind of business skirt that everyone wears there.

The conformism there is sickening. And I get the feeling that most couples (politicians and otherwise) kiss in public not because it comes spontaneously to them, but because of the underlying insecurity of having to keep affirming their love in public (no matter how real it is).

I will change my opinion when a future president elect is a non-Christian, and wears some kind of ethnic dress or headgear, and doesn't feel compelled to hold his wife's and childrens' hands while appearing on stage. My guess is it would take another 100 years for that to happen (although I would be most happy if it is earlier).

The other point I want to make is what is this thing about Americans and their manner of speaking which is full of inane and repetitive platitudes. Any politician (whether Republican or Democrat) when asked any question on a specific topic would invariably pepper his reply with "This is a great country".. "I believe we can do it", "we are all in it", etc. Worse still, the public there actually gets taken up by these phrases that don't really mean anything. You don't come across politicians of other countries dishing out these kind of platitudes for nothing.

This kind of behaviour is not limited to just politicians. Even in my own conf calls with Americans, they take 10 sentences to convey what most other nationals take 5 sentences. I find this useless verbosity of Americans quite tiring.

ledzius,,, could you be any more offensive or off point if you TRIED? also your points are just, well, silly. they don't make sense. I would explain myself further but you are impervious to reason.

Ah, ss, I don't believe we have yet begun to plumb the depths of true Ledziusness yet. Yipeee...I can't wait.

thanks for the compliments, ladies..

ledzius,

in other words: you take a zillion sentences, when other indviduals could make do with a couple, to convey the fact that you want Americans to respect and indeed mimic other cultures, while you reserve the right to dismiss, make fun of and put down American culture. And let me guess, you don't see any contradiction there, do you?

yeah, what CS said.

uh, ledz, since I doubt you know any Black people why is it for you to say what their culture should or should not be. I think your assertions are simply ridiculous. I mean, what, we need to act like desis in the US? What are you suggesting?

And oh, yes, we're not afraid to kiss in public here and show affection. I know that is hard for you to understand, but we do it because it is natural for us. So while you're busy clearly not understanding other peoples' cultures and criticising them, maybe your time might be better spent being quiet and observing.

Lezduis says @ #18
"The conformism there is sickening. And I get the feeling that most couples (politicians and otherwise) kiss in public not because it comes spontaneously to them, but because of the underlying insecurity of having to keep affirming their love in public (no matter how real it is)."

I agree to your point as in I too don't understand the Anerican obsession over family values and flaunting it on public stage. I also don't understand why a good leader needs to be the perfect family man. In a country where family values are far more fluid, that demand is unreasonable IMO. In constrast in India we don't care. Nehru was a womaniser and flaunted his relationship with Lady Mountabatten but that did not stop the masses from adoring him and the classes from turning a blind-eye. Being a good leader and being a good family man are not necessarily by-products of the same character.

Yet that is the culture and a politcian as to 'conform'.

So, that vein, your feeling 'sickened' by the conformism in the US is just plain simple hypocrisy. In India why does Rahul Gandhi have to wear Khadi? Will you accept Sonia Gandhi wearing a skirt? No, she has to wear a saree and when she goes into the interiors she has to cover her head. Why do all politicians wear a homespun khadi in their public appearances, when that is no longer the everyday attire.

Boss.. a politician has to conform anywhere in the world. I suggest if you need to get sick, lets start doing that at home first!

yeah but Ritu, in the same way we also do not understand why holding hands or a peck on the cheek would be considered so scandalous to desis. it is a daily occurrence here, and to assume that Obama is doing it because he has to conform is also a false argument. here that does not amount to flaunting anything, it is simply what we do. and we're happy with it.

GOP was done by low GOP Voter turnout and matching money power:

Between 126.5 and 128.5 million Americans cast ballots in the presidential election earlier this week. Those figures represent 60.7 percent or, at most, 61.7 percent of those eligible to vote in the country. That is same as 2004.

A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.

That means, it was the get out the vote and registration drive of obama that created an edge for Obama over GOP, not GOP's message. It is true that GOP base felt dispirited and stayed home that created its margin of defeat. But decisive factor in effectiveness of Obama's message and despiriting of GP base was not GOP's message but rather overwhelming power of money that Obama brought to his campaign. GOP would have won in spite of untimely economic meltdown, and anti-incumbency baggage of lame duck Bush presidency. But lack of matching money power and low GOP turnout did GOP in. GOP should not over-read the results or self-destruct over the defeat.

GOP has won all the major ballot initiatives, held down democrats to half of its projected gains in senate and congress, and won 48% of popular support - that is not a small feat for a party that had to overcome unpopular bush incumbency, economic meltdown and MSM crusade to elect Obama.

SS: I do not have any problem understanding public display of affection. I know in India is it not common but that is the way Indians are and people in different parts of the world are different. Getting an impulse to express a feeling and going ahead and doing it is perfectly fine. There is nothing scandalous about it. What catches my interest is it being a ritual. As Lez says. In American politics it is the given routine and every president must display a picture perfect family on the political stage. Do you think everybody feels affection for their spouse just at that same moment every time? It is a ritual. And I do think they are confirming to the picture of perfect family.

That I find interesting and unusual because at a deeper level it reflects a certain aspiration(?) of the American people. A candidate's ratings go up when he kisses his wife on a public stage. I feel there is a certain voyeurism there on the part of the general public and an average politician panders to it.

Interesting Findings of exit polls (excerpts):

-The 2008 presidential election saw more of a rejection of Republicans than an embrace of Democrats -- but voter surveys find no broad ideological realignment behind that shift

-there was virtually no change in the ideological spectrum: This year 22 percent called themselves liberal, compared with 21 percent in 2004; 44 percent moderate, compared with 45 percent; and 34 percent conservative, same as four years ago

-despite Tuesday's broad victory for Obama and Democrats in Congress, voters nationally have not shifted significantly leftward -- something Democrats may bear in mind as they take full control of government in January eager to reshape federal policy

-Since 1992, liberals consistently have comprised 20 percent to 22 percent of the electorate


Read whole article here
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_el_pr/party_vs_ideology

Ritu, there are different rituals in politics in every part of the world. In India, there are rituals of humility: Yes, I've taken crores in bribes and am insanely rich but during election time I am going to call myself the servant of the people, join my hands in a perfect namaste and be really obsequious to you. Yes, I might be someone more comfortably in jeans but I'll wear khadi every day. Yes,I am living with my lesbian lover but you can say that Jayalalitha's "friend" lives with her.

Why should U.S. politics be any different? We have our own rituals. Big deal. As far as people getting some kind of voyeuristic thrill from watching a couple kiss, what can I say? I don't think most American people sit around analyzing a simple kiss. I mean it wasn't as if they started playing tonsil hockey out there. In fact, the one time that Al Gore kissed Tipper a bit too deeply at a public event, he was made fun of and many were put off. It's a matter of degrees. A simple peck on the lips is just that. Simple. And culturally appropriate.

I think most people take it as a natural thing. Someone's happy, they've won, they're kissing. Big deal! It's only cultures that think there is something intensely personal (or lewd even) about kissing one's partner in public that it becomes such a huge deal. It's a natural show of affection and most people don't spent two seconds thinking about it.

And I have as yet seen no data showing that a candidate's rating goes up when s/he kisses his/her spouse. Could you direct me to that? Sounds interesting.

Rituals are the hallmarks of culture. So, in Indian culture we usually greet each other without touching. That's fine. In the U.S. we shake hands, and in Switzerland (applies mainly to women among themselves and men and women, not usually men in most places) we kiss each other on the cheek three times. This does not mean there is anything sexual going on. It just is. It's as simple as saying namaste or shaking hands. It only takes on a different meant if someone unused to it finds meanings other than cultural in it.

The Triumph of Hope - By Suzanne Fields
http://townhall.com/columnists/SuzanneFields/2008/11/07/the_triumph_of_hope

However, there is ample reason to be weary when politicians have dreams, when they paddle hope or fear - because it always means somebody is going to pay.

The Children Are Watching - PEGGY NOONAN
America makes history, but the mandate is for moderation. Read the article here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

Peggy, an arch conservative, had dropped out of Mccain bandwagon over Palin. 20% of conservatives have voted for Obama. Many leading conservatives either dropped out of McCain camp or actively joined the Obama bandwagon during last few weeks. Post-elections, many more hardcore conservatives are offering moderate mask over Obama victory - may be they are trying to moderate Obama, test his mentle as a self-confessed post-partisan president , perhaps they are trying to define what 'post-partisan' means in their own partisan terms - where being non-partisan does not mean transcending partisan divide or taking politics to a level where partisan issues appear petty and insignificant but rather create a very partisan take on what 'non-partisan' means - how much one side is willing to compromise with the other side. So both sides will be seen laying down the terms of non-partisan endearment. Don't expect them to last very long. Hope, dreams, change, non-partisanship - how touchy feely these things sound in rhetorics. But devil is in the details.

it is a daily occurrence here, and to assume that Obama is doing it because he has to conform is also a false argument.

ss, that statement borders on the naive. All politicians - including Obama - know that the camera is on and millions of viewers will see their actions. Makes it difficult to believe that all their actions performed in front of the camera are sincere and honest, and not dictated by exit and opinion polls, consultants and campaign managers who know to a pretty good degree what effect those actions and words will have on millions. The RNC and DNC are nothing but a scripted TV show. If you believe otherwise, then, well, you're welcome to your "reality." Politics is not so much about issues, but a lot about theater and symbols everywhere.
----

As for Obama, it was interesting to read a soaring rhetoric by the editor of a major US newspaper about slavery, freedom trail, civil rights and leading up to Obama as the redeemer of all those shameful episodes, till a reader pointed out in the comments section that Obama's dad was a Kenyan who had nothing to do with the slavery and racist history of US, and Obama was raised by his white grandma and mom. I guess we all like to project on to our leaders our hopes, aspirations and emotions which may not have a basis in reality.

BTW, I have nothing against PDAs - I've indulged in them and will continue to do so. My previous comment was about politicians indulging in it in front of a camera during their party conventions. Who can forget Al & Tipper Gore lip-locking moment from 8 years ago! :)