Ladies and gentlemen, the last dying gasp of the failed political ideology that is conservatism, and the Republican party that has embodied it for the last 30 years.

Can I get an amen?

As with everything else your newspaper publishes, this will be greeted with the sound of absolutely no one caring.

I disagree with every word but eloquently put at least. To quote Ollie North: "We shall see, my friends. We shall see."

Russ, this wouldn't fly in any professional newspaper outside the university.

It's equally racist and thoughtless to assume voters chose Obama because he's black. The significance of this election was that Americans were able to look past the color of his skin in judging his candidacy -- something you haven't done yet.

Furthermore, your description of the terrible things to come under the administration --an unfair tax system, irresponsible economic policies, heightened terrorism -- sound more like a description of the LAST 8 years. Where have you been? Wouldn't it have been terrible to reward Republicans for this kind of leadership?

You can moan, and you can be bitter. But this time around America chose an intelligent, consensus-minded, and temperate individual over a hawkish, erratic, candidate of old ideas. And maybe someday you'll appreciate the benefits of this choice that others made for you.

Peter, I can't speak for Darren, but i'll try to explain his points.

By "unfair tax system" he means how Bush's tax cuts benefited the rich most of all (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/was...).

By "irresponsible economic policies" i think he means the bailout and economic stimulus package, neither of which has seemed to help in the least, and both of which possibly made things even worse (http://www.contrarianprofits.com/arti...)

And as for the "heightened terrorism", while i don't think Bush caused 9/11, and any discussion about whether or not he could have prevented it is for another article, there is no doubt that his invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and that the occupation of Iraq is inciting more terrorists then we can kill.(http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html)

And as for the vast majority of Black voters voting for Obama, certainly i'll acknowledge that some Black voters did vote for him just because he is Black, but it's not as simple as that. People in lower income brackets tend to vote democratic, and Blacks on average are poorer than whites.(sources: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/resu... and http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A010455...) Race plays more of a role than just "he's black, im black, im voting for him".

PS Everyone knows Blacks have traditionally voted Democratic in this country since the New Deal coalition.

Peter, blacks didn't win this for Obama. Even if 100% of African Americans who voted on Nov all voted for Obama, that alone wouldn't have won him 270 electoral college points. A heck of a lot of white people did too -- that's what is signficant.

Charles: I find it utterly hilarious that I have 11 facebook friends in common with someone as hostile as you. Small world eh?

Chris: Thanks, as always!

Peter: Right on.

Arlan: I realize plenty of people voted for him because they agree with him on certain issues. What I'm saying is that there are definitely people out there that voted for him solely because he is black, and that is just as racist and just as despicable as voting for McCain just because he is white.

Tom: If he doesn't lose in 2012, he will be gone in 2016. That's what I meant. Eight and a half years might be more accurate, but that's nitpicking. Re: the race issue, if you read my other columns I have been annoyed with McCain's campaign at times, but that alone doesn't explain this. Furthermore, as an opinion columnist I do not speak for the Daily as an entity.

Jaime/Daren: Obama has done well by not making race grievance a theme of his campaign. If he had, he would have lost. However, he is quite defensive at times (such as when the admittedly silly flag pin controversy came up). Jaime raises valid concerns and we only hope they do not become a defining feature of this next administration.

quite a pretentious, self-serving piece!

"Those of us in the business of writing commentary"
hum, "us"??

Well, at least you called it commentary, so it doesn't have to be reflecting reality.

"While the presidential election was closer than the polls had predicted"
Actually the polls predicted exactly what happened, state by state, to 0.2% of the personal vote, except Alaska, check 538.
You mention "a reverse Bradley effect". The Bradley effect is about people saying they'll vote for an african-american, and then vote for a white. I think you meant reverse racism. Plus, if there was a reverse Bradley effect, the votes would have been better for Obama than the polls predicted, which you claim is the opposite of what happened. You're not coherent. You wanted to use another of these fancy word or wise quote, but it doesn't make sens in this context.

"Perhaps a few people voted in search of welfare checks"
Wow, might these people be black too? sounds like 1980s racial stereotypes. And perhaps a few rich republicans voted to get yet another tax brake, so that they can enjoy the dividends from their stocks in companies which ship domestic jobs to quasi-sweatshops in SE Asia? Are these better motives?
Call that anti-business populism if you will, that's easy, but my statement is true.

"I cannot help but suspect that America will be haunted by the negative consequences of this poor choice for decades to come"
How about the consequences of poor choices 8 and 4 years ago? America, Irak, Afghanistan are haunted by the catastrophic failures of Bush policies (failure to reduce the terrorism threat, failure to control the subprime crisis and the bank crash it resulted in, failure to avoid digging a huge deficit, failure to fix infrastructures, failure to act on energy policies...)

And about the terrorism threat. Why won't the Neocon understand that:
1- there was no WMD in Irak
2- Bush knowingly lied about it
3- Saddam Hussein did not support Al Qaeda
4- Irak had nothing to do with 9/11
5- Al Qaeda is now in Irak
6- Al Qaeda is probably stronger than ever

"Sometime in the next eight years, the White House will have yet another occupant" yes Sarah Palin and everything will be better, at least we won't have to worry about those pesky details about Africa having several countries.

"Canada calls, but I must not go"
No, no, you misunderstood, it's not you their calling.

"I am not proud of America tonight, but I remain proud to be an American. This is my country, right or wrong."
So your piece is about how wrong things are going to be, and you're trying to imply that you have every reason not to be proud, and yet you are. So that makes you a great guy, a great selfless patriot. Wow, all this to get to that? Bravo.

Boris

Obama is not the problem. It is his left wing supporters who continue to bash the right for whatever reasons. Even if Obama wants to unify the country, his supporters, like those on this board, won't let him. During the campaign, there were a lot of conservatives who were able to disagree with their own party but I heard none of that from the left, and attack they sure can. The fall of the right was entirely because they became arrogant and corrupt with the power they gained. And this will mark the beginning of the fall for the left if they do not see the failure of the right as a historic lesson.

"Perhaps a few people voted in search of welfare checks, or out of irrational exuberance, or maybe even out of a racist desire to have a president of a certain race — a reverse Bradley effect, if you will. Such is the price of democracy, “the worst political system except for all those other forms that have been tried.” Those of us in the business of writing commentary may quite rightly question the motives of the electorate, but the ballot-counters do not, and should not. Legally, a properly cast vote by a validly registered voter is what it is, regardless of the thought, or lack thereof, put into it."

This rhetoric is beyond the pale. To suggest that the Obama win was due to reverse-racism by African Americans and the self-interest of welfarce recipients (conservative code-word for "blacks") is patently offensive. And let's be sure, that is exactly what the author is suggesting.

And then there's the fact this article suffers from all the factual deficiencies and lack of sourcing mentioned in the comments above. You have to wonder if this is the newspaper of the students of the University of Washington, or a sorry excuse for a clone of RedState.com.

@Peter:
1- there was no WMD in Irak (hindsight, Saddam hid that fact and the whole world , including you, were fooled.)

The UN inspectors said their was no WMD. Then Bush said he had proofs and he wanted to go to war. Then the UN convinced the US to give the inspectors their evidences. The inspectors went in, found nothing. They said their was no WMD in Irak. European media said their was no WMD in Irak when the US media was cowardly following the official White House line.
Who was fooled? the american people. Everybody outside of the US knew their was no WMD. The news that UK intelligence gave false evidence for Irak trying to buy nuclear supplies in Africa was out in European media before the war started.
That is the way it happened. When Colin Powell gave his speech at the UN, everybody outside the US knew it was highly dubious. I wasn't fooled, people in the Europe weren't fooled. The US media fooled you.

Bush (or his administration) lied knowingly, because the fabricated proofs. When you fabricate proofs, you lie.

4- Irak had nothing to do with 9/11 (We could not prove it. But that does not mean he had nothing to do with 911. The jury is still out. Your conclusion is premature.)
Hum how do you prove he had nothing to do with it? How do you prove I had nothing to do with it? Their is no evidence whatsoever that link Hussein and 911, what else do you need, an affidavit from Bin Laden?
Did you know Arabs aren't all the same? Saddam's regime was opposed to the kind of religious fundamentalism that Al Qaeda advocates. They were enemies. All the experts say Al Qaeda was not in Irak before the state collapsed.

5- Al Qaeda is now in Irak (Incomplete, they were in Iraq then and now.)
No they had no significant presence in Irak.

6- Al Qaeda is probably stronger than ever (Are you kidding? They will likely be much stronger if we let them.)
Yes, and we did let them. We let them get stronger by weakening the US forces in Afganistan, being complaisant with Pakistan, and opening a playing field for them in Irak. Al Qaeda was at it's weakest when the Talibans fell. Now the Talibans are stronger, Al Qaeda has regrown in Afghansitan and expanded in Pakistan and Irak. Granted the surge may have helped reduce their influence in Irak from 2 years ago. But 10 years ago they were not in Irak.

@Janet. OK, but 4 years ago Bush had already failed on many issues (terrorism, wars, deficit, personal liberties...), and yet he was reelected.

Boris, Let me just ask you one question. If we found Osama Bin Laden, should we shoot him dead on sight, capture him and try him in the international court, or try him in the US court?

Russ,

To dwell on whether or not race was a factor in this election is only going to keep you from focusing on the things that really matter to you--small government, heightened national security, less taxes, and so on.

Have you even talked to any black voters about why they cast their ballots for Obama? Maybe you should. If 95% of black Americans voted for Obama with the fact that he is also black, I'm sure there are plenty of people who voted for McCain because Obama is black. Regardless of who you are targeting, race may very well have been a factor in this election. That means that racism is still alive and thriving in our society--which honestly shouldn't need to be pointed out, but if anything is going to open people's eyes and minds about it more, this election might as well have been catalyst for change.

I voted for Obama because I felt that he was the best candidate to represent me and the ideas and goals that I have in mind for our country. And if he's black, then so be it.

A last comment, mainly to those on the board above me who are also in disagreement with Russ: it's important that people with his ideologies make their voices heard, as much as it might cause people like us to spend time responding to his words, keeping in mind that not a lot of people will ultimately see this conversation unfold. It's important that we read and hear and see oppositions to our own beliefs and realize what we care about and why, even if the end result is that we're a little angrier for a few hours in our day.