Putting "Country First"?

This point comes approximately 1 year or 2 too late but who cares:

You shall remember that during the dreadful campaign of 2008, the lackluster Republican Nominee, John McCain's campiagn slogan was "Country First" below a military-esque star logo.



Over time the hypocritical absurdity and audacity of McCain making "Country First" his official campiagn slogan has only become more and more apparent. It's no mystery why he choose "Country First" because McCain wanted to play up the only issue his pollsters said he did well next to Obama on: national security.

"Country First" doesn't imply as much as says and promises and proclaims, at once, that John McCain is the kind of Presidential candiate who would never put his campaign ahead of his, ya' know......country.

The kind of politician that puts "Country First" is the kind candiate who wouldn't back a policy that was bad for the country just because they think it will, say, help them win a descive amount of votes among a certain voting bloc in the Arizona, er, i mean, nation's electorate. Like those white male Republican politicians from states with large latino populations like George W. Bush who back amnesty, a policy that is terrible for America in every way, because there political guru's tell them that if they do they can gain a extra slice of the latino vote that will prove descive in the upcoming election, kinda right? This reminds me, why did John McCain go to that Hispanic Caucus luncheon immediatly following the his defeat to Barak Obama and have a breakdown grabbing the microphone to accuse latinos of "betraying" him after all the "sacrifices" he made for them. What could McCain have meant by "sacrifices"? I mean, what did he do for hispanics that sacrificied his popularity with other (more patriotic-minded)? It's a real mystery.

And ya' know, John McCain was really putting politics second and "Country First" when he picked Sara Palin to be his running mate. Because, McCain decided to put stretagic political consideration to the side and just pick the most qualfied person in America for the job of VP when he choose Palin.
Sure, McCain could've picked some airhead who Republican pollsters and campiagn gurus like Karl Rove thought would poll we and help him out with a certain segment of the populations like women or hispanics but when it came time to pick a VP nominee John said,

"I do not care, do you understand me?, I repeat, I do not care if it's not good for our campaign I've got to pick the most qualified person for the job of Vice President, someone who knows the most about the world, whose read the great philosphers and historians, whose shown a profound understanding of the issues for years, some one with not just a brillant mind, there are lots of those, but the most brillant mind, someone who doesn't just know who Martin Van Buren's Secretary of State was but knows his whole biography let alone his name and thats why I've decided to pick Sarah Palin. I know that you guys are going to say that, 'she's too cerebreal! She's too intellectual! She'll never connect, let alone, relate with the common man!' or tell me that 'She's another Adlai Stevenson!'. But, look, I'll say it one time only: Sara Palin may not be the most attractive person that we could've picked, sure she doesn't exactly have sex appeal and sure she's a little plump and sure, theres more than a few wrinkles on her brow but shes got the most brillant mind of any politician in the United States. She may not prove to be the best for me poltically, but she's the best qualified for Vice President, for 2nd in command and I'm pointing country first!...For if, god forbid, I pass while in the White House, my friends, I want to know, I want to go to bed at night knowing, that I will have left for my beloved nations sake, not some airhead Republican who looks good but who hasn't a clue who Edmund Burke is but rather the most capable and equipt and eurdite American (available to me right now) in my place, as commander and chief of the United States of America. Lets face it my friends, I am well into my 7th decade and I still have cancer that at the moment lies dormant but at any time can return and put me 6 feet deep, when I picked VP, unlike Obama, I could very well be picking my succescor as President and thus I have a duty to place politics to the side and pick Sara Palin."

Why Keith Oblermann has the hardest job in show bizness

Long have i reckoned that Keith Oblermann and Rachel Maddow would, come the start of the Obama Presidency, have the hardest jobs in show bizness. For on that day, the bulk of the mainstream media (save FOX ofcourse) ceased to be journalists and began working (voluntarily, one hopes) for the Obama adminstration. Shedding the craft of journalism they-the legion of overly miseducated liberal, ambigously hetrosexual, yuppies who run NPR and, more or less, the rest of the mainstream media-took on a new more neblous proffesion, a cross between propogandists and PR people for the Obama adminstration. During 8 years of Bushdome these liberal troopers were, although very often wrong, atleast journalists for they held Bush's feet to the fire and no one in those 8 years had to worry about CNN burrying/suprresing news incovient to the adminstration. But then a charmstic black man by the name of.....you know the rest. Basically liberals because there goals are so often those of naive utopians, whether it be creating a heaven on earth, a worker's paradise, or a society where every neigborhood is perfectly racially balanced and where Africans Americans score exactly the same as whites, and so on are willing to justify the use of disreptubable tactics (often not conciously) to attempt to "achieve" these goals of liberal perfection that they delusionally see within our grasp. The communists of all varities killed hundreds of millions respectivly to achieve there goals. The socialist and communist movements in European states like Italy and Germany committed terrorism throughout the 60's and 70's. Of course, American liberals today don't commit acts of terrorism to achieve there objectives but then again this is no suprise since Keith Oblermann, one atleast hopes, has fair less grandiouse goals and visions than Lenin. As the visions and goals get more moderate the tactics do aswell. There goal is not centralized planning and abolition of private property but to help Obama and the Democrats pass health care, amensty, the fairness doctrine, card check, Cap & Trade, impose higher taxes and more regulation, stregnth affirmtive action, racial quotas, beef up the EEOC so it can go make sure Frank Ricci's everywhere don't get the promotions they earned if "not enough" blacks aren't promoted aswell on a given civil service examination. So while liberals don't employ terrorism or mass slaughter as tactics to achieve there goals they employ, as i'll detail below, slander, defamation, suppresion of facts and stories for poltical reasons, discrimination and even, in one area in paticular, they will employ what i consider treason by actively pushing for policies that are undeniably terrible for America and Americans in order to help bolster there party and there moral leader, Barak Obama. in there quest for "justice".
No two members of the mainstream media have turned into propgandists and PR people for the Obama adminstration more than Rachel Maddow and Keith Oblermann. Like the MSM as a whole during the 8 long years of the Bush adminstration, Oblermann and Maddow where usually quite wrong about Bush, they made all the wrong criqtiques of him and neglected all the most valid critqiues of Bush, but atleast, again, they where holding his feet to the fire, atleast they viewed those in power through a fundimentally skeptical (though all too often conspiratorial and hysterical) and adversarial lens. With Obama, as i've said, Oblerman and company said "goodbye to all that" skepticism and whatnot.


During the Bush years Oblerman and his staffers sought out the most obscure quotes and factoids to nail the Bush adminstration (again often they where wrong), today, much of Oblermann's job is simply just having the lack of integrity or perhaps the ignorance to ignore all stories incovient to Obama as if they didn't even exist. No, East Anglia scandal, no Ricci case, none of that on "Countdown with Keith Oblermann".

Here's a perfect example of why i pity Maddow and Oblermann and believe them or at any rate there staffers to have the hardest job in show-biz. Last night, Scott Brown, the Republican, not only beats the Democrat, Stokely, in the race for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat but does so by a wide margin. The seat had been de facto Kennedy property literally since 1952 and there are few bluer states than Masschusettes (Illinois?). So Oblermann and Maddow and there producers and staffers have been scrambling since 9 o'clock last night into today, trying to figure how to exsplain how racism, bigotry and general igonarance is the reason Scott Brown won. For in Oblermann world, opposition to Obama can have no conceivably substantive basis and is and must be a result merely of people's racism, bigotry and reactionary provincialism and Oblerman says as much about the Tea Partyers his proxy for the opposition to Obama as a movement. Slandering the right and people on the right as racist without ever caring to prove someones's racism, is what Oblerman and Maddow and there far left ilk do for aliving especially since Barak Obama was elected. If Obama didn't win they claimed it would show that America and Americans just hadn't "evolved" enough and that the nation was still racist and bigoted and unenlightned. They made the election into a referendum on a America's virtue. If McCain won America was still a racist sack of shit. They also made it a referendum on the virtue of white Americans. If you voted for McCain, of course, you were showing your inner racism and your unevolved provincial fear of having a black man as President. If McCain won, white America would be shown to be the dispicable, anti-black, nazi-loving racist scum that Keith Oblermann and Rachel Maddow and Susan Sontag (who once famously wrote that, "the white race is the cancer of the human race") always knew it was. It's important for the Oblermann's and Maddow's to keep depict the poltical scene in this fantastically Manechian and delusion way: where you have a group of people in America called Republicans who are only not supporting Obama because there racists and homophobes and hillybillys who hate black people and worship Adolph Hitler at the dinner table. This way, Oblermann and Maddow don't have to deal with any Republican arguments and facts incovient to Obama because in Oblermann's depiction the GOP has no serious arguments against Obama certainly known worth even dignifying with a responce, they are just racists, racists, racists, racists! You say you whats the proof of there racism? It's obvious who needs proof!

"Can i call you Joe?"

Hopefully, yet another nail in the coffin of Sara Palin's poltical career has come with the realse of the new book "Game Change" by Mark Halperin, a tell-all about the 08' campaign packed full behind the scenes goodies like the below snippets. There is a upcoming 60 minuetes episode devoted to the book. Check out these juicy details that exsplain why Palin asked Joe Biden "Can i call you Joe?" before the VP debate from a DrudgeReport.com article on the book (something which seemed so innocous when she asked it as she and Biden shook hands at center stage),

"In the McCain-Palin camp, Schmidt says that when he was told by a campaign staffer prepping Palin for her debate with Biden that the vice presidential candidate was doing very poorly in her preparation, it was a crisis moment. Watch an excerpt. “He told us the debate was going to be a debacle of historic and epic proportions…she was not focused…not engaged,” he tells Cooper. “She was not really participating in the prep.” Schmidt confronted Palin and, he says, “She said, ‘You know, I think that's right.’”

If that wasn’t enough for deep concern, Palin had a reflexive tendency to refer to Biden as “O’Biden,” says Schmidt, something that had to be fixed before the debate. He says others in the campaign came up with a solution. “It was multiple people -- and I wasn't one of them-- who all said at the same time, ‘Just say, Can I call you Joe,’ which she did.” Schmidt says he took over the prepping, simplified it, and says she “more than held her own” in the debate. But not without one “O’Biden” slip on national television.

Palin declined to be interviewed for this story, saying she had dealt with many of the allegations in her own book."

My take on this devolpment is 1. i'm going to skim or read this book when it comes out on audiobook and 2. If you had any doubts about wheather McCain staffers where lying about what a joke/diva Palin was to work with, i think this is pretty much conclusive.

good bye, Sara

you'd make a good elementrary school Principle.

A Evoultionary Exsplanation for the differences in the ways men and women vote

As one of the few people these days that actually thinks for himself I have been grappling with the issue of intelligence for a while. Could it be that my intuition in nearly two decdes of life is right: are african-americans less intelligent than europeans on average? what about women?

By intelligence i mean IQ. Peoplle like to make a point about saying that "there are many different intelligences." well my reaction is mixed. If your talking about one's communuciation i'd say and i'd be backed by the evidence in saying that women are better at communicating. It appears east africans are better long distance runners than east asians. But these are not intelligences.

So i think that there is one identfiable thing that we call intelligence/IQ. IQ measures one ability to do things like invent a new technology, get a PHD in chemistry, etc. Some people who get very upset about people who ackowledge the black-white IQ gap often forget it seems or don't realize that IQ is by no means the be all end all. It doesn't mean that you are a worse person or an inferior person or that you won't get married.



Though the IQ gap between men and women is far, far less pronounced in the data and in life than the black-white IQ gap is, one sences a slight gap nonetheless. I certainly believe men are naturally more inclined towards poltics and the external world-poltics, war, sports- in general while women are far more inclined towards there direct surroundings-there friends, children, etc. But i also feel that men have a more robust intelligence that is better on average at seeing and sencsing complexties and articulating them. We know that men are less emotion in there thinking and that women are far more emotional and intuitive, more swayed by intagible breezes of emotion and feeling than men. Inturn men's temperment makes them more suited to not just war and more physically strenous occupations like lumbering, construction, etc but also, and this is more controversial, towards poltics and goverance. Now before i exsplain why i believe this fully, let me state the following:


Since men have large bodies and muscles more equipt for war and strenous farming work, women been the child bearers obviously for millenia have been the ones inside in the home with the children and men have been the ones outside, working, fighting, building. This much is obvious. Now evoultionarily her's why i think this set up has made men today more equipt and inclined toward goverance and poltics. Since men were the one's, as i said, outside, warring, they have also since ancient times been the ones governing communitys while there wives stayed in there indivual homes. The men went to war and thus after and between and before wars they were the ones who both ran the armys and naturally inturn ran societys, wheather that be in a dictorial manner or a democratic way.

And since men have, more or less, exclusively been running and governing there societys for time on memorial, it would be logical to think evoultionarily, that men's minds and temperments, over millions of years, became inclined and suited to the task of goverance than women who for all those millions of years where inside, by nesscity, in the domestic sphere while men governed. If you reject the religous view of divine creation of man and woman and all of earth, this would seem to be the obvious exsplanation for why men are so heavily and disportionatly intrested and involved in poltics and goverance.

And in addition, consider that the male temperment is much more suited for poltics, men are more domineering they want to be in control more and hate being under the control of women far more than women do vice versa, men are also far more competive than women and compeition is central to poltics as it is inherently central in sports and war (2 areas where men are unquestioned to be more naturally more equipt and inclined than women).

Feminists would claim as a responce, that women aren't less intrested and inclined and invested in poltics, they are just as inclined towards and intrested in poltics as men, but that men are oppressing them and preventing women from partxcipating in goverment and poltics as much as men. This claim may have been true in 1939 or 1956 but it's not true as of 2010 (aka now). Women are encouraged to parcipate in poltics and goevrnance as they and blacks have been encouraged for decades.

Now women are perhaps as passionate about poltics as men and women at the bottom of the IQ bell cover are, perhaps more poltically intrested than there male equivalents. But the nature of male IQ distruption is more polarized, with more people at the extreme ends of extremly high intelligence and extremly low intelligence. In fact the top male IQ's are higher than the top female IQ's as is the median male IQ and the lowest male IQ's. There are 10 times as many male autistics than female autistics.

Back to passion about poltics: women at all ends of the IQ/socio-economic spcetrum are very if not more passionate about poltics than man are. But they are not as intrested or informed about poltics as man are. This was something especially prevalent and observable just 16 months ago during the 2008 presidential election between Obama and McCain. Girls/Women (i never know which to say) where very often downright hysterical and delirous with emotion in favor of then Senator Barak Obama. Across the country for months, women fainted and weeped and shouted and wept at Obama rallies often at the very sight of Obama as he entered the stage. During, Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic nation convention, millions of Americans watched on TV as Obama spoke clip after clip of women and young women shedding tears in the audience , like so many clips of young women in the audience of Beatle's concerts and Elvis concerts in the 50's and 60's. Indeed, if there is a concert, a poltical rally of great size you can be assured if any one assembled there is weeping or shouting and crying in adulation in the bleechers it is a young sweet girl and/or smitten women. Women as i say, are mmore intrested in human stories, in people, in feelings than statstics and abstracts compared to men. Compared to men, women are far less intrested in debating about the federal deficit, but they are more intrested in the new episode of Desperate Housewives. Women are more inclined towards being nurses than mathemeticians. So while men in the audience can look admirably at Obama as he speaks because they support some or all of his policies, women weep because they adolize the man though they may agree with many of his policies. A polticians personality his "vibe" is more important to women than it is to men. Women are very intuitive. They get feelings about people, they read things on a man's face and make assumptions which are often right. One of my ex-girlfriends and i where reading the book "the Female Brian" and we got to a part on female intuition and we talked and she said that she and "all women" can see everything "in a guy's face. We know about things without being told. We can feel it." This is useful and helpful for women and girls (perhaps) when it comes to there intuition about the boy there daughter brings home being no good but it can get in the way and be problematic when it comes to poltics and deciding wheather to vote for Obama (handsome, charsmatic) or McCain (old, grumpy, un-charsmatic). And all this reflected in the inquires into the differences between men and women when it comes to politics. Many studies have just asked a large samples of men and women for the reason they voted the way they did and they all show the same thing. Which is that women when exsplaining, say, why they voted for Obama rather than McCain, cited factors unrelated to policys far more than men. In effect, women have answers like this to the question of why they voted for obama a lot more than men did:

"Um, i'm voting for Obama because i think that, well, we really like need a change right now and Obama has like a very good heart and i think he has like good intention for the country and everybody and really is gonna like put our country in the right direction. He really is a good man who cares for the people and i think he has a good heart and really like really really cares about the people and the disadvantaged too"

While on average men, as i'll these studies show, give answers like:

"I voted for Obama because i think we need to get out of Iraq and because he seems to understand the problems America has alot better than Bush did. Um.....and i think he's going to spend more money here in the US rather than abroad in wars and stuff more than Bush did which is good."

I'm not saying as you can see that the average male voter is super-eloquent and informed and that the female average voter is comparably so ditzy or uninformed, the average voter of both gender i=are both pretty un-informed and unarticulate but still on average women vote on superficialy reactions to poltician than issues compared to men which makes sence from an evoultionary standpoint: mothers have to be able to decide for thousands of years whether there daughter or son's potential mate is of good charcter, so they have to get good and devlope a good isntict at making quick superficial intuitive judgments of people/men's charcters and intentions while men for thousands of years had to do that but also had to judge/vote for men on a more cerberal, un-superficial basis while they ran society for thousands of years. In other words for thousands of years, the kind of judgments analgous to voting for a president today that women exsperienced was judging the charcter of there progenies potential friends or mates while men for thousands of years had to do both that and had to make judgments much more similiar to modern voting while they ran society and had to vote among there gender which other man should be tribeleader or whatever.

Thus it would make sence that women that having only in the last, more or less, century gained the right to vote would have a more primitive/superficial/visceral mode of judging/voting for or against polticians.

Men have been running societies and choosing which man should get the top job for thousands of years while women just started less than a 100 years ago.





So leaving aside wheather men have a more robust or complex intelligence than women on average, i think its clear, from a evoultionary stand point, that women have (on average ofcourse) minds less inclined and equpt towards poltics, voting and popular democracy. They may be better at decteting bad charcter or bad traits in men as potential husbands but they are worse on average at anyalzing the issues and voting on that basis alone for a candiate.

By the way, i forsee the criticism that "well, men are not enterily rational voters either, they vote on superficialities too." This is completly true. Men today as they have for centurys promoted/voted for other men on primitive/superficial basis' such as a candiate is bald or strong or weak or old or young or married or single. Ofcourse, this is human nature. I just think that men on, average, consider non-superficial aspects like issues, etc. more than women.

And finally, let me make clear that i am not calling women inferior. I am saying that evoultion is to blame and who knows, maybe women will take over and/or dominate the poltical spehere for the next thousand years and by the year 3010 men will be less inclined and equipt for voting on the issues alone.

Poltically Correct Amnesia: Eric Holder's minions rebuild the Sub Prime bubble

I wonder sometimes are the Obamites really so stupid to not realize forcing banks to give minoritys with bad credit loans is what created the housing boom and bust in the first place? I worry they haven't a clue. Certainly there actions suggest they are clueless,

Obama staffs the Justice Department to the hilt with all the most vile diversity consultants, race racketers, grievance mongers, discrimination lawyers (his former piers in other words) and sets them loose exactly as he promised at Spellmen Unviersity (atleast he doesn't lie to his "people"). Eric Holder has promised to double, triple, quadropole, the number of dispirate impact lawsuites and other various bullshit discrimination lawsuites all of which make an utter mockery of our Constuition (1776-1956).

And among the appauling lawsuites the newly radiclized Justice Department will be pumping out, will, no doubt be lawsuites against banks for not giving out "enough" loans to people of the preffered skin tone namely latinos and blacks-the two groups who where indispensable to the housing boom and bust which percipatated the fall of Lehman Brothers and whole god damn reccession. Ofcourse, the fact that the foreclosures where almost all happening in heavily latino sand states and in latino and black countys within those sand states, was far far too poltically incorrect to be reported by the mainstream media-no, to report that, would be "scape-goating". Well, this dirty little secret about who and what is to blame for the housing bust and the economic downturn has appeared in, atleast, Niall Ferguson's "The Ascent of Money" and Thomas Sowell's "The Housing Boom and Bust" two books that someone in the Obama white house should have read by now.

But ofcourse to come to terms with this unmentionable truth about the housing boom and bust would be to admit that goverment, not "greed" was the main culprit in the reccession which is a conclusion completly unsayable i am sure around the Obama White House. In case your late to this uncoventional truth, here's the low-down: Clinton and Bush, the whole Democratic Party and a scattering of Republican imposters supported raising latino and black home ownership by force. In order to create a latino and black ownership society by force, these Democrats and manifestly un-conservative Republicans used Freddy Mac and Fanny May and discrimination lawsuites to force private banks (unconstuinally) to give blacks and latinos with terrible credit loans they shouldn't have gotten.

Christmas day I came across a clip of the Democratic candiates youtube debate from 08'. The question poised to the candiates was "do you support reparations for slavery?". Ofcourse, they all dodge it by saying that they'll help blacks in better ways. Well John Edwards, abiding to this formula, answered,

"I'm not for reparations..but i think there are other things that we can do to create some equality that doesn't exist in this country today. Today, there was a report, right here in Charleston, African Americans are paying more than there white counterparts for morgatages than anyother place in America..and heres an example: what is the conceivable exsplanation for this? That black people are paying more for there morgatages? And, by the way, its not just low income African-Americans..there's absolutely no exsplanation for this. It goes to the basic question i just raised a minuete ago to have a President whose gonna fight for equality, fight for real change, big change, bold change. We're gonna have to have somebody,we can't change our insiders for there insiders, that doesn't work. What we need is somebody who will take these people on, these big banks, these morgatage companys, big insurance companys"

Edwards is advocating exactly what created the housing bubble which was the goverment in the name of "equality" (as always) putting its tantacles where it has no Constuinal right to be (e.i. suing Banks for not giving out, what they deem to be, "enough" loans and mortage to blacks no matter how bad there credit) and creating the sub prime housing market as a result that would fall apart and bring down the banks along the way. I find it hilarous that Edwards asks "what conceivable reason could there be for that?" refering to higher morgatage prices for blacks. Ofcourse, with our PC mufflers on, no one stood up and said "because blacks, very logically, have worse credit cause the are a more risky investment, more likely to be foreclosed upon as all the data shows." If someone had had the balls to do so maybe we would have avoided this whole mess and probably avoided the whole Obama nightmare along with it.

And so what is the morale of this story? It's quote obvious i think: the market was right! Blacks got loans less because they were a more risky investment, and so when DC liberals get involved in forcing businesses', in this case banks, to run there companies a certain way, they screw it all up.

And as i write, the Demoncats are revving up to involve themselves in the running of whole new sector of the economy-that which emits Co2 into the atomsphere. They-Pelosi, Reed and Obama and all the other liberals who have never run a company in there entire lives-say they know, as always, whats best for companys emiting Co2: that is that they need to "make a long term investment by switching to more green technologies". So why not just suggest this rather than try to force them to remodel by imposing onerous taxes on these companys in order to coerce such change? ......(no answer)....

What they don't get is that these companys who will be slammed hardest by cap and trade, first of all, know how to run there own companys better than say Nancy Pelosi does and they won't remodel there plants when cap and trade makes there doing business in America impossible, no, they'll just leave America and take there thousands of jobs with them. But then again the liberals don't seem to realize that companys can and do leave America for other countrys when they impose tax upon tax upon tax upon them.
Once again, with cap and trade as with so many other issues, the liberal takes 3 mental steps and the conservative takes 7. So in the case of cap and trade,

The Liberal Logic is: 1. the world is going to die 2. but we can save it 3. so we need to pass cap and trade or die and

The Conservative Logic is: 1. we don't know how much climate change is going to occur in what time frame 2. even if we knew how hot it will be in 40 years, we still need to know how much of that change is natural and how much is man made which again is a nearly impossible question to answer that we need to know more about 3. then even if Al Gore is right which at the least not clear we still need to know what it will take to prevent climate change and 4. can we have any viable impact making neglible cutbacks along with a few EU nations? 5. what is the cost vs. the benefit of cap and trade? 6. China and India alone will cancel out our tiny insubstanial cutbacks but we won't get the jobs that we loose because of cap and trade back again. no deal.

Now, what if John Edwards had gotten elected? He would have been saying after the reccession like all his party did "it was those greedy rich wall street guys who caused this! the problem is greed! the solution is goverment. It was deregulation of the housing sector that got us into this mess and it goverment thats gonna get us out of it"

And he would have gotten aplauded for that and the so called media wouldn't point out as the have yet to point that the people in goverment are at fault and obviously trying to deflect blame and responcibility to Wall Street.


Check out the video of John Edwards debate answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5XAvfgpesU

Testing America

Obama won, in part, in 08' because his supporters shamlessly (though usually absent-mindedly) made the election somewhat into not a real election about an actual set of issues but a test for America, in which Americans could show if they were enlightned, post-racial and proggesive by voting for Obama or show that they were racist, primitive and provincial by voting for Mccain. If Obama won white America/America would show that it wasn't so racist after all and had "evolved" morally, if Obama lost, however, then implicitly America/white America would show that it was just as primitive and racist as Jesse Jackson and the world thought.

If you doubt me how many mind-numbing times have you heard one of the million generic leftists in the media resort to the following talking point?:

"Though much has been made about whether Obama is "black enough" for black voters, perhaps a more relevant question is this: Has the nation's white majority evolved to a point where it can elect a black man as president?" (The Washington Post)

Talking about the "transformational", "post-racial", "unfying", "enlightening" effects and signals of the Obama victory never fails for a generic liberal pundit who has nothing orginal or intresting to say about Obama.