I spent the day working at the polls, working to assure that everyone who sought to vote, got to vote. It was literally a fight at the polls here– making sure that the misapplication of the rules did not prevent votes from counting. I had no idea who these people would vote for– sometimes I could guess, but really no idea– and just was part of a team (that included my wife and daughter) whose goal was to assure that everyone who was entitled to vote and sought to, got to vote. In the course of it all, a poll worker who was inventing his own rules for affidavit voters called my wife a “bitch,” and she viewed that as a badge of honor.
And people voted, in record numbers I’ve never seen, voting in Oxford since the mid-70s.
And then afterward, we all showed up to watch the returns at the City Grocery Bar. Cheers when states came in. Cheers for Travis Childers. Respect and applause for the gracious consession speech by John McCain, and then real tears, raucous applause, tears and celebration for Barack Obama’s speech, with its echoes of King and Lincoln and look to the future. John Currence had champagne poured in celebration, and we all looked on in wonder.
It’s been an amazing night, NMC. Thanks to you and your family for working the polls … and to everyone who had a part in this historic moment.
I am glad that a new president has been elected. However, for the first time in a long time I must agree with you NMC. When I rolled through the polls here in Oxford I saw nothing but voting, no one that I saw had any problems what so ever. It seemed to me to be no different than it has been in the last several elections that I have voted in here in Oxford. But guess what it is over with… and now it is time for people to come together. All I hope is that people get exactly what they want. In a secondary issue, there seems to have been more hostility and animosity towards those with differing opinions on this blog and that is something that I find problematic. While I do realize that this is your blog lotus and NMC, I have valued the freedom of expression and thought that seemed to exist in the previous months. Sorry for the rant, I still enjoy this blog and will continue to read it, I just wish that a more civil atmosphere existed at times. Finally, thank you NMC and the rest of your family for your work at the poles, ensuring the right to vote for everyone is something that I think everyone here can find no fault with.
Contrasting this election with the last few, the actions of both the winner (Obama) and the second place finisher (McCain), were first class. THAT is the way it should be handled by both the winning and losing party. McCain’s concession speech was wonderful and will aid in a smooth transition of power. And Obama and his family handled his party’s gathering and speech with class and dignity — no in your face type of behavior toward those whose candidate lost —- very humble,classy, and uplifting.
Contrast this to the circus scenario that ensued when Clinton first won office after defeating George Bush I, and there is no comparison. The Clintons and Gores, and their supporters, were very in your face, and almost taunting in their behavior after winning that election. I could hardly listen to Fleetwood Mac after that evening.
And contrast McCain’s behavior to the behavior of the losing candidate and their supporters in the last two elections. The differences are stark, and reflect very positively upon McCain, who does put his country first both in words and actions.
Unlike witnessing the immature Clintons and Gores (as referenced above), and Kerry, which only filled me with anger, watching Obama last night produced exactly the opposite reaction —- as it should be — a recognition that my candidate lost, the people had spoken, and I would at least give him a chance to make a positive difference for our country. No anger. No bitterness. Nothing of the sort. And I don’t think I am the only one who voted for McCain who feels this way. I would say, from the reactions I have observed so far, that I am in the majority of such folks.
Its the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
A very good comment, AFOTL, and I agree with all of it. I work with a man who voted for McCain, but has a point of view very similar to yours about the result of the election. He doesn’t agree with it, but has a lot of respect for Obama’s speech last night and is cautiously optimistic about his presidency. I firmly believe that Obama will be a good president for all of us, liberal and conservative.
When Clinton won in 1992, it was after 3 very polarizing GOP terms, and I suspect that the jubilation shown by the Dems just got on conservative nerves, but I don’t recall it being very “in your face.” Just very jubilant. But I can see how anything that Clinton did would seem “in your face” to the people who despised him.
And Election 2000 was a very unusual event, you must admit, and one that a lot of people are still bitter over. Gore had every reason to be upset by that election, but he still did the right thing and conceded once it was all played out and bowed to the decrees of the Supreme Court, however fucked up their decision may have been. He was a much bigger person than I would have been.
I also remember Kerry being very gracious after losing. What did you find objectionable? I just don’t remember much about his concession that would give someone pause.
As for McCain’s concession speech, yes he was humble, but the crowd was not and booed Obama’s name to such an extent that McCain needed to admonish them somewhat.
Thanks Plexix for demonstrating the angry democrat prototype even better than I attempted. If you can’t see the difference between Obama and his predecessors in the democrat party, then nothing I could say here would convince you otherwise.
I think Obama learned a lot by studying the Clintons and Gores, and the mistakes they made —-especially from their initial post-election actions and through the first two disasterous years. I doubt we see a repeat of that under Obama (unless I have seriously misjudged him).
Plexix, Bill Clinton upon taking office immediately fired ALL U.S attorneys who had been appointed by a Republican. Was that not an “in your face” action.
Then Hillary decided to clean out the Travel Office.
AFOTL: Hey, I’m not angry about anything! I feel pretty good these days. I was trying to summarize my recollections of those elections. I see differences between Obama and his predecessors, of course, but Obama won and his Dem predecessors lost. It’s a lot easier being magnanimous when you’ve just won. Not sure what your point is. I just don’t recall Kerry being very negative, perhaps it is just one’s perspective. And don’t you think the way Election 2000 played out left a LOT of Democrats a bit peeved about the whole thing? Can you understand that?
Nomiss: True…..but didn’t Reagan do the same thing? I think that any new president should have the ability to hire who he / she wants to implement their priorities, including the Travel Office. And the White House Barbershop, for that matter.
Upon reflection, AFOTL……I looked at my original post again and would like to know what you think was “angry” about it? If that demonstrates the “angry Dem prototype”, your threshhold for anger is pretty low.
take it easy on Plexix…his language is a little too colorful for me and i am not a demo or pub…but we have all been angry with the way America has been taken…by the way I am a sold out Christian and believer…I have set back and seen rights taken away…(Patriot Act), tort reform, the list could go on and on…all in the good name of what is right for our country…and where has it got us? billions being spent on a war that should have never began, a place where we should have sent troops now being ravaged by a group called the Taliban and guess what…the pubs now are talking about cutting a deal with them…bin laden was our target…was not he? enough of my ranting and raving…let people be angry…it means they have a deep belief in something and guess what that right can not be taken away…anger if vented in the right way will lead to a change beneficial to all
afotl @6″democrat party”-uhhh, that would be the Democratic Party, please.
Thanks, jdog…….but I’m not angry! You should just see my big ole smile right now.
You tell ‘em Glitter @ 11! And capitalize “The” while you’re at it!
TalkLeft just mentioned that, among other positions, Obama will be hiring 93 new US attorneys. I can’t believe he is being so “in your face” about things! Why can’t he be nice like those sweet Republicans?
AFOTL, I think your reactions show more anger than Plexis’s reactions.
Plexix @ 8, Reagan did replace many U. S. attorneys DURING his presidency. He left the usa’s who were in office in place until he had a replacement with a new appointee—a process that took place throughout the YEARS of his presidency. The former USA’s were aware they would or most likely would be replaced, but they and their office’s had time to make the transition in an orderly manner.
Clinton, however, went into office and immediately, in a broad, sweeping order, fired all current U.S. Attorneys who had been Republican appointees. Clinton did this before he had replacement appointees, leaving many U.S. Attorney’s offices in flux as to when they would get a new U. S. Attorney appointed and who that person would be. In some states, it took several years before a new USA was appointed. Clinton’s act of making an immediate, sweeping, across the board firing with no one in place as a new appointee was, IMO, very “in your face” but, more importantly, very irresponsible.
Nomiss @ 16, I honestly don’t know what the normal practice is, and I see your point about leaving the positions unfilled. You seem to know a lot more about it than I do.
Anyway, back to AFOTL’s contention that the Clinton transition engaged in “taunting” behaviors and were “in your face,” I think it is just a matter of perspective and perhaps AFOTL just didn’t like the Clintons or their victory very much. I certainly didn’t see what AFOTL saw.
If Presidents appointed US Attorneys on their ability and integrity rather than as political patronage, they probably would not be replaced in such a hurry. They are political appointments and are treated as such.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/23/nation/na-talking23
“Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.”
Plexix @ 14: I didn’t say the Republicans were sweet or nice. And most parties do want their own people in positions that they can appoint.
I do maintain that Bill Clinton’s immediate, broad, sweeping firing of all Republican appointed U.S. Attorneys during the first days of office was “in your face” and irresponsible. Clinton could have stated that he planned to replace all Republican-appointed usa’s and that he would do that as soon as possible. Instead, Clinton ordered that all Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys were fired and should vacate their positions and offices immediately. I’ll try to research his order regarding this act.
Obama has apparently made it known that he will be appointing new usa’s, but hopefully, he will have the good judgement to refrain from telling the current ones to vacate their positions and offices immediately, as Clinton did.
I remember that Bob Whitwell in Oxford was one such US Attorney who vacated his office according to Clinton’s order, and it was quite a long time before a new USattorney was named. Many of you probably know much more about the details of this than I do. The Southern District, however, had a new appointee named rather quickly.
I think it’s a waste of time to argue about Bill Clinton and U.S. Attorneys. I bet $50 that Obama does it in an orderly, non-political way that puts qualified lawyers in the positions.
Seems to be the style Obama has demonstrated these past 2 years, roger.
rogerwilco @ 20, I agree.
Too funny. I give kudos to Obama for his classy speech and demeanor last night, and I’m taking a beating. Oh well.
No anger here. I am more skeptical than cynical, and most often am a glass half-full type of person. Despite differences of opinion, I can see the good in most. And with every president/new administration, there are pros and cons.
While tailgating on a beautiful day this past Sat. in the Grove after Ole Miss’ win over Auburn, the discussion turned to the upcoming election. My mom was expressing a little surprise (shock might be a better word) that my younger sister was supporting Obama, so I came to her defense to point out the following. While our taxes may go up a bit, our gross revenues from the family pharmacy business should go up enough to offset with more dollars spent on Medicare and Medicaid (typical during a dem controlled White House and Congress). And those higher taxes should also keep the real estate market deflated long enough for my mom to enjoy a nice buyers market for a while until she puchases a new home to retire to (downsizing). And the legal business should increase with more folks needing lawyer services to avoid higher taxes, defend lawsuits which should be on the rise, etc. (my lil sister is a lawyer too). After setting forth these potential financial benefits from an Obama victory, my mom seemed more relaxed, but did not convert. And my little sis seemed pleased that her “evil” conservative big brother came to her rescue. LOL.
Got to learn to roll with the punches. Survive and thrive baby. Just leave my damn guns alone and don’t touch my 401(k) and we’ll be all right.