Campaign 2008

Remove the Filibuster from the Senate Rules

davidswanson — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:26:09 -0400

By David Swanson

Trying to squeeze any sort of peace on earth out of our government in Washington has been a steep uphill climb for years. For the most part we no longer have representatives in Congress, because of the corruption of money, the weakness of the media, and the strength of parties. There are not 535 opinions on Capitol Hill on truly important matters, but 2. Our supposed representatives work for their party leaders, not for us. Luckily, one of the two parties claims to want to work for us.

When the Democrats were in the minority and out of the White House, they told us they wanted to work for us but needed to be in the majority. So, in 2006, we put them there. Then they told us that they really wished they could work for us but they needed bigger majorities and the White House. So, in 2008/2009, we gave them those things, and deprived them of two key excuses for inaction. We took away the veto excuse and the filibuster excuse.

This is not to say that either excuse was ever sensible. The two most important things the 110th Congress refused to do (ceasing to fund illegal wars, and impeaching war criminals) did not require passing legislation, so filibusters and vetoes were not relevant -- in fact, the Senate and the president were not relevant. But the Democrats in Congress, and the Republicans, and the media, and the White House all pretended that wars could only be ended by legislation, so the excuses for not passing legislation loomed large. The veto excuse disappeared on January 20th. The filibuster excuse could have been gone by January 6th if Senator Harry Reid had wanted it gone. But it's gone now.

The filibuster excuse works like this. Any 41 senators can vote No on "cloture", that is on bringing a bill to a vote, and that bill will never come to a vote, and anything the House of Representatives has done won't matter. Any of the other 59 senators, the 435 House members, the president, the vice president, television pundits, and newspaper reporters can blame the threat of filibuster for anything they fail to do.

Now, the Senate itself is and always has been and was intended to be an anti-democratic institution. It serves no purpose that is not or could not be more democratically accomplished by the House alone. The Senate should simply be eliminated by Constitutional Amendment. But the filibuster is the most anti-democratic tool of the Senate, and can be eliminated without touching the Constitution, which does not mention it. If you take 41 senators from the 21 smallest states, you can block any legislation with a group of multi-millionaires elected by 11.2 percent of the American public. That fact is a national disgrace that should be remedied as quickly as possible.

The filibuster was created by accident when the Senate eliminated a seemingly redundant practice of voting on whether to vote. Senators then discovered, after a half-century of surviving just fine without the filibuster, that they could block votes by talking forever. In 1917 the Senate created a rule allowing a vote by two-thirds of those voting, to end a filibuster. In 1949 they changed the rule to require two-thirds of the entire Senate membership. In 1959 they changed it back. And in 1975 they changed the rule to allow three-fifths of the Senators sworn into office to end a filibuster and force a vote. Filibustering no longer requires giving long speeches. It only requires threatening to do so. The use of such threats has exploded over the past 10 years, dominating the decision-making process of our government and effectively eliminating the possibility of truly populist or progressive legislation emerging from Congress. This has happened at the same time that the forces of money, media, and party have led the Democrats in both houses to view the filibuster excuse as highly desirable, rather than as an impediment.

Now the Democrats have 60 senators (58 Democrats plus 2 independents caucusing with them -- one leading the way, the other bringing up the rear). Perhaps this moment when a filibuster could be overcome by partisan power would be an opportune time to permanently overcome it for whatever forces dominate the Senate in the future by changing the rules to get rid of the thing. The Democrats have lost the excuse now. Every policy they enact that strays from majority opinion in the country has to be blamed on something other than the filibuster. So, with nothing to lose, why not rid us all of this cancer on our democracy?

Were the Democrats serious about eliminating the filibuster excuse, they would have taken steps over the past six months to do so. The President could have appointed Republican senators from states with Democratic governors to key jobs without cutting deals to ensure replacement by Republicans. Congress could have given Washington, D.C., representation in both houses of Congress or at least tried harder to do so. Or the Senate could have done what it could still do and should seize the current moment to make happen. It should simply change Senate Rule 22, which reads in part:

"'Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?' And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of."

This would seem to suggest that it takes 60 senators to block a filibuster and 66 senators (if 100 are present, otherwise fewer) to end the power of 60 senators to block filibusters. But that's not the whole story. William Greider recently explained:

"In 1975 the filibuster issue was revived by post-Watergate Democrats frustrated in their efforts to enact popular reform legislation like campaign finance laws. Senator James Allen of Alabama, the most conservative Democrat in the Senate and a skillful parliamentary player, blocked them with a series of filibusters. Liberals were fed up with his delaying tactics. Senator Walter Mondale pushed a campaign to reduce the threshold from sixty-seven votes to a simple majority of fifty-one. In a parliamentary sleight of hand, the liberals broke Allen's filibuster by a majority vote, thus evading the sixty-seven-vote rule. (Senate rules say you can't change the rules without a cloture vote, but the Constitution says the Senate sets its own rules. As a practical matter, that means the majority can prevail whenever it decides to force the issue.) In 1975 the presiding officer during the debate, Vice President Rockefeller, first ruled with the liberals on a motion to declare Senator Allen out of order. When Allen appealed the "ruling of the chair" to the full Senate, the majority voted him down. Nervous Senate leaders, aware they were losing the precedent, offered a compromise. Henceforth, the cloture rule would require only sixty votes to stop a filibuster."

Greider proposes reducing to 55 percent of the Senate the number of senators needed for cloture. I propose reducing it to 50 percent plus one. Either way, nobody is proposing that a minority be empowered to decide anything, only that a majority finally be permitted to (even to the extent allowed by an anti-democratic body like the U.S. Senate in which both Wyoming and California have the same number of senators).

As long as the filibuster remains on the books, the Democrats will claim that they cannot control all 60 of their senators. Never mind that we were told for years to shut up about peace and justice and work and contribute to the election of 60 Democrats after which joy and harmony would flow out of the Capitol. We will now be told that renegades cannot be controlled. And I don't want to fight that, because I don't want parties to be able to control their members. I don't want their members straying in order to support minority interests, like pulic funding of private health insurance companies. But I do want members straying in order to support majority interests, like defunding wars.

Party dominance is as corrupting a force in our legislature as the filibuster itself, and therefore offers not only a weak solution for it but an undesirable one. Senator Bernie Sanders has asked the other 59 senators to commit to stopping any filibusters. And so he should. But he should also ask Senator Reid to put to a vote for decision by 51 senators (or 50 and the Vice President) a simple rule change to empower majority rule in a body that cannot without taking this step make any plausible case for the desirability of its continued existence.

This article has been updated from a version I published in December.

UPDATE ON NUKES:

One common response to this proposal is that Democrats opposed such a move when Republicans had a Senate majority and denounced it as a "nuclear option," and that therefore it would be hypocritical and wrong to do such a thing now. But I'm not proposing that this be done for the Democratic Party. I'm proposing that it be done for the American people. It's not that the opposition to it has no merit at all. It's not that there couldn't be downsides. We could have a situation in which 51 senators representing a minority of the public could out-vote 49 senators representing a majority. But this could happen both for and against the policy interests of any particular person. Right now we have a situation in which 41 senators representing a tiny minority can out-vote 59 representing almost all of us. And that can happen both for and against the policy interests of any particular person, but it predictably happens more often against the interests of more people. And, as to the responses that majority rule equals mob rule and must be quashed, I urge you to consider the policies passed by Congress and the policies favored by a majority of Americans in polls and tell me which are more peaceful, just, and sustainable. And I urge you to be satisfied with the antidemocratic nature of the Senate itself, further corrupted by money and media and parties. If all that's not anti-democratic enough for you, you've got real problems.

UPDATE RESPONSE TO COMMENT BELOW:

Glad I can represent the Democratic Party
Submitted by davidswanson on July 8, 2009 - 4:09pm.

in undocumented deranged fantasies when its useful between fits of pillorying me for lacking loyalty to the Democratic Party

I'm a useful guy

Author of the upcoming book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press.

German university student graduating on motivation of registered democrats - need participants in online survey

katharina_germany — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:40:31 -0400

Dear All,
I am a 26 year-old graduate teacher student of English and Politics completing my degree requirements. I urgently need participants in an online survey to gather data by visiting this link:
http://motivation-democrats.limequery.com/

To complete the programme students are to write a graduation paper of around 100 pages in either one of the two scientific fields or a school-based area.
My graduate paper is designed to survey the level of American citizen involvement in political parties and concentrates on registered Democrats. The success of the study very much depends on the help and participation of many people. The paper needs to be finished by the end of August and I will begin to analyze the data as soon as possible. Answering the questionnaire should take no more than 10 to 15 minutes. So I would be more than thankful for your help and support.

The Survey can be accessed following this link:

http://motivation-democrats.limequery.com/

To ensure that surveys are submitted only once, you will need to register before proceed to answer the questions. Answers will be made anonymous and will not be able to be connected with any participant.
If you have any possibility of distributing the web link to the survey to other Democrats, please feel free to do so.
If you have any further questions, please contact me at katharina.rommel@student.uni-halle.de

Thanks so much for your support.
Katharina Rommel

Obama Beats Pre-Election Polls

Bob Fertik — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:23:05 -0500

Glenn Greenwald compared the pre-election polls to actual results in the battleground states and discovered Obama did better than the polls predicted in every single state.

Swing state	RCP Final avg.	Actual result	Actual result v. poll
Ohio	Obama: 2.5%	Obama: 4.1%	Obama: +1.6%
Florida	Obama: 1.8%	Obama: 2.5%	Obama: +0.7%
Pennsylvania	Obama: 7.3%	Obama: 10.3%	Obama: +3.0%
Virginia	Obama: 4.4%	Obama: 4.5%	Obama: +0.1%
Indiana	McCain: 1.4%	Obama: 0.8%	Obama: +2.2%
North Carolina	McCain: 0.4%	Obama: 0.3%	Obama: +0.7%
Missouri	McCain: 0.7%	McCain: 0.2%	Obama: +0.5%
Colorado	Obama: 5.5%	Obama: 6.7%	Obama: +1.2%
Nevada	Obama: 6.5%	Obama: 12.5%	Obama: +6.0%
New Mexico	Obama: 7.3%	Obama: 14.9%	Obama: +7.6%

As Greenwald explains, this data disproves some popular theories of the right, left, and center:

Just as was true in 2006, various factions from across the political spectrum insisted this election that the ultimate vote totals for the Democrats would be substantially lower than what polls predicted. Many on the Right claimed that this would occur because pollsters and the media organizations which sponsor them are biased in favor of liberals and therefore manufacture anti-GOP polls. Some on the Left (including some here recently) claimed this would happen due to GOP control and manipulation over electronic voting systems, which enable GOP operatives to switch large numbers of Democratic votes to Republican votes. And many pundits and others predicted this would occur due to the "Bradley effect," whereby voters intent on voting for McCain would lie to pollsters and say they were voting for Obama (or, relatedly, that McCain voters would be more reluctant to speak to pollsters at all).

As I wrote before the election, the unprecedented number of pre-election polls combined with rigorous aggregation of that data by sites like FiveThirtyEight.com meant the final poll averages would be very close to actual results.

FiveThirtyEight.com hasn't done a state-by-state analysis yet, but the accuracy of their national projection is scary:

Right now, Barack Obama has 63.7 million popular votes to John McCain's 56.3 million, whereas third party candidates have roughly a collective 1.6 million. That works out to 52.4 percent of the vote for Obama and 46.3 percent for McCain ... conspicuously close to our pre-election estimates of 52.3 percent for Obama and 46.2 percent for McCain.

Goode-Perriello Recount Required?

davidswanson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:27:21 -0500

WINA reports:
"State law calls for a mandatory recount when the separation in the vote total is less than one-half of one percent."

But here's a citation of state law stating that a recount must be requested by apparently losing candidate.

Check the official results.

Be glad if you voted on paper because for most voters in Virginia's Fifth District there simply ain't nothing to recount.

AUDIO OF A PERRIELLO INTERVIEW TODAY.

And an encouraging statement from Perriello.

And a call for help:
"Remember the friends that I told you about who are working on a state campaign in Virginia? Well, it came down to within a few hundred votes and they need help getting the word out to election lawyers/political operatives who can help with a re-count. Would you mind forwarding this info to your list? The campaign is Tom Perriello's run for Representative in VA's 5th. David Madden is the contact person. His number is (202) 550-6461 and his e-mail is david_madden@post.harvard.edu "

And an analysis of Perriello's success, and a prediction the recount will take till Christmas, and something very strange: votes oddly eliminated and added:

VERIS is the new (and controversial) state voter registration database system. I just did an analysis of the changes due to the VERIS malfunction (?). In Danville, Tom Perriello’s vote totals (”original value”) were REDUCED by 308, while Virgil Goode’s vote totals were INCREASED by 1819. I do not understand why vote totals would have been affected by VERIS “going down after midnight,” as the VBE update page states. It seems the system is used to report vote totals. So precincts were able to report vote totals before midnight (presumably, these are the “original values”), but were prevented from finishing until this morning, when (it seems) the system was rebooted. Why, then, would vote totals have been decreased as well as increased? Also, the data from the missing precinct in Lunenberg were just added (9:58am): 351 Goode, 207 Perriello.

Possible explanation here.

And another mystery.

Goode v Perriello: Recount?

davidswanson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:12:19 -0500

By David Swanson

There is still hope that Virginia's Fifth District can be rid of Virgil Goode, but the final count has him in the lead. A recount is possible, and if there is any basis for it, I hope that Democratic candidate Tom Perriello will request it. Even if he loses a recount, Perriello would earn our respect as someone who stands up to see that every vote is counted, rather than someone who runs in fear of being called names like "sore loser."

The many complaints of polling place problems recorded yesterday by Election Protection in Virginia do not appear to be concentrated in the Fifth District. But there are serious complaints there, which if verified would throw the election in a very bad light. I've pasted some of the reports below.

It's important to remember, however, that even if every election machine worked perfectly, there is absolutely no way to recount the votes made on them. I voted early and on paper, so my vote can be recounted. Most people voted on DRE machines, which arguably violate the Virginia Constitution's requirement of public vote counting. These machines count votes inside a black box. It cannot be made public. It cannot be verified. We simply have to hope that the machines got it right, which -- of course -- such machines quite often do not. Sometimes, as documented below, their failures are even visible to voters.

While Virginia has cut off funding for these machines, it has not yet banned their use. Paper ballots can be counted with optical scan machines. Those machines are just as unreliable as DREs, but leave a paper trail that can be recounted. Most reliable of all, and least expensive, would be paper ballots placed in a locked transparent box, publicly opened and counted at each polling place with witnesses from all interested parties, and the results publicly posted at each polling place. Registration issues would be solved by instituting universal registration. Regardless of the outcome of this particular election, it should point us toward such necessary reforms. Here are some of the reported (not verified) problems from counties that are in part or in whole within Virginia's Fifth District:

This is from Campbell County:

"Voting machine is jamming. Asking voter to hit "McCain" to clear the machine, instead of using override to clear and to let the voters properly register the vote. Local NAACP has been called about the problem."

From Charlottesville:

"Voter from Charlottesville, VA requested an absentee ballot which only arrived on Election Day."

"Student voters were not able to cast a regular ballot because they registered with student groups that did not turn in the forms on time."

"Unsubstantiated rumor from Clark that machines broke down at Tonsler. As a result paper ballots were being used. Some were not being counted due to boxes not being completely filled in (they were checked instead). However, instruction wasn't being provided to completely fill-in ballots."

From Bedford:

"concerned whether the machine properly recorded her vote. the machine jammed when the voter in front of her tried to vote."

"machine stalled on voter before this voter - would not go forward or backward - voter had to vote on machine after they got it going again and is concerned about whether her vote counted because there was no papertrail"

From Fluvanna:

"Tried to vote. The candidate for senator came up, voted, but the candidates for president never came up on the voting screen. Also happened to the person that came before her."

From Cumberland:

"Family members have same name. One member of family committed felony. Other member denied ability to vote."

From Greene:

"Poll worker pressed wrong button on voting machine (hit countrywide and not enter) as a result voter was not able to vote in statewide races. Thinks that this may be happening to other voters as a result of poll worker error. Left polls crying. Poll worker said would file an incident reprot but was told by superiors that this "could not happen" with the electronic machines. Voters thinks that it may signfiy other problems with machines."

From Appomatox:

"Touch screen voting machine did not allow the voter the opportunity to vote for the Presidential candidates. Talked to voter registration people for their county and they said there was nothing they could do after the ballot was submitted. Voter registration officials told the voter that there had been similar problems in Appamattox, VA."

From Prince Edward:

"Caller learned that others had entered a nursing home and filled out patients' ballots without them knowing who they were voting for."

From Franklin:

"Voter mailed registration form in, is listed as registered in our database, but was told he was not registered when he went to his polling place."

"Voter selected Obama and McCain showed as indicated. Voter corrected her ballot and machine then recorded her selected choice after voter talked w/election official"

From Henry:

"saw a man with republican campaign buttons approach 4 elderly african american voters and he told them to vote the bible; voter's husband reported this to the supervisor in the elections office in Henry County"

"Went vote early. They told him that because he works for a campaign, he cannot vote early except for presiden. He did not vote at all as a consequence. Went to vote at the Henry County Administration Building, 3300 Kings Mountain Road, Collinsville. Approximately at 1:15 pm on October 31, 2008."

"attempted to register son on line. Not in Va. database"

From Mecklenburg:

"Caller was turned away from proper polling place because told he was not on the registration list. Caller has a registration card and voted in the primaries, so it is surprising that voter does not appear in any of the registration databases. Voter has not moved since the primary election this year."

"Voter was told she is not registered, although she is showing up on our database as registered."

"She is 53 and voted a lot fo different ways and today they looked at IDs. She is used to electronic way and the woman handed her a paper ballot and she said that the machine is broken. She didn't tell and didn't say anything. Explained it to the person previously and never tells her where to put it. Folded ballot and put in the box. She called the voting registrar but he said that the machine had been fixed at 6:30. Worried that her ballot would not be counted. No one was watching the box. Thinks that these voted won't be counted. Thinks that the machines are fixed but doesn't know."

"Touch screens difficult to register answer. He got help from poll worker, but is concerned that others are not able to make their selections properly because it is difficult to press. Mecklenburg County. Precinct 701"

"Daughter and son in law moved to Georgia in early October and faxed absentee ballot to Virginia. Daughter called local board; said not received."

From Brunswick:

"She asked to help her. The poll worker got an attitude with her. They got into an argument and the poll worker would not allow her to vote and asked her to leave."

Referenda: Abortion Rights Win, Gay Marriages Lose

Bob Fertik — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 10:40:53 -0500

Meteor Blades compiled the results of "culture war" referenda. Abortion rights are now mainstream even in rural states, but gay marriages are still feared even in "liberal" states.

The two attempts to outlaw abortions failed in South Dakota and Colorado, and parental notification failed in California. The three attempts to outlaw gay marriage succeeded in Florida, Arizona, and California, as did the ban on gay adoption in Arkansas. Arizona likes cheap illegal immigrant labor, despite Lou Dobbs. Nebraska banned affirmative action while Colorado narrowly kept it, no doubt a reflection of the relative numbers of minorities in the two states. Assisted suicide passed in Washington, medical marijuana passed in Michigan.

(The numbers in parentheses are the percentage of precincts counted.)

Arizona Proposition 102 defining marriage as between a man and a woman (92%)
For: 1,009,693 - 57%
Against: 777,359 - 43%

Arizona Proposition 202 revoking business licenses for hiring undocumented workers (92%)
For: 702,839 – 41%
Against: 1,020,204 - 59%

Arkansas: Ban Gay Adoption (90%)
For: 549,074 – 57%
Against: 418,648 - 43%

California Proposition 2 to protect farm animals (84%)
For: 5,427,791 – 63.1%
Against: 3,167,769 - 36.9%

California Proposition 4 for parental notification on abortions (84%)
For: 4,061,123 - 47.2%
Against: 4,535,947 - 52.8%

California Proposition 8 to ban gay marriage (84%):
For: 4,605,065 - 51.8%
Against: 4,293,068 - 48.2%

Colorado Proposition 46 to end affirmative action (77%)
For: 886,544 – 49%
Against: 911,218 – 51%

Colorado Proposition 47 to make Colorado a right-to-work state (80%)
For: 863,812 - 44%
Against: 1,079,591 - 55%

Colorado Proposition 48 to define a zygote as a person
For: 494,058 – 27%
Against: 1,353,078 – 73%

Florida Amendment 2 more strongly banning gay marriage (99%)
For: 4,657,031 – 62%
Against: 2,848,490 - 38%

Massachusetts Question 1 to abolish the income tax (93%)
For: 842,799 – 30%
Against: 1,922,815 - 70%

Michigan Proposition 1 to approve medical marijuana (92%)
For: 2,704,166 (63%)
Against: 1,607,324 (37%)

Nebraska: Ban Affirmative Action (99%)
For: 384,729 – 58%
Against: 283,351 - 42%

South Dakota Initiated Measure 11 to ban abortion (99%)
For: 160,697 - 45%
Against: 196,847 - 55%

Washington Initiative 1000 on assisted suicide (48%)
For: 826,229 - 58%
Against: 588,321 - 42%

Blue Virginia

davidswanson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:35:20 -0500

By David Swanson

Virginia and the rest of the old South always voted for Democrats for president when the Democratic party stood for racism, and for Republicans when the Republican party stood for racism, until tonight. Virginia just voted for a Democrat for president, while the Republican party still carries the banner of racism. In fact, the Republican candidates played up their racism more this year than in other recent elections. In addition, the Democratic candidate was black. It's a new South.

Virginia is now a blue state, as is Florida, and at the time I wrote this it looked likely that North Carolina would be too. Other new blue states are: Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada. Other undecided states that used to be red are: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and Alaska. It's a whole new map.

Of course, nothing is that black and white. Barack Obama's father was black and his mother white, so we call him black. When 51 percent of a state votes for a party, we apply that label to the state. Virginia voted 52 to 48 for Obama, and at the same time voted 64 to 35 for Mark Warner for Senate. Warner is a Democrat, but a white one. According to exit polls, only 41 percent of white Virginians backed Obama, and 20 percent of whites said race was a factor in their decision to back McCain. Meanwhile 40 percent of blacks said that race was a factor in their decision to back Obama, which 91 percent of blacks did. What put Obama over in Virginia was not the end of racism, but the end of support for George W. Bush, whom 72 percent of voters said they disapproved of. At the time I wrote this, North Carolina was too close to call for president, but had elected a white Democratic senator by a margin of 53 to 44 percent. And 71 percent of North Carolina voters said they disapproved of George W. Bush.

Here in Virginia's Fifth District we've long been misrepresented by one of Congress's most aggressive racists, Virgil Goode. Tonight I was present for the victory speech of his Democratic challenger, Tom Perriello. But the vote was so close that Goode may challenge the outcome. At best, I guess we should say that Virginia is purple. Like the nation as a whole, Virginia pulled off an election in which the presidential outcome matched the exit polls and the popular vote and did not have to be decided by lawyers. But there were 863 polling place problems reported to Election Protection, and many voters in the Fifth District voted on DRE machines, which means that no recount of their votes will be possible.

Obama has an even more militarist and corporatist platform than Bill Clinton, and yet the past eight years have made Obama seem like, and be, a dramatic change for the better. We should celebrate, and the world will join us in celebrating, the defeat of the party of Bush and Cheney. And yet we cannot celebrate having allowed them to remain in office for eight full years. We need to push now to impeach them and to prosecute them for their crimes. Restoring the rule of law to the White House in that way will have a bigger impact on the behavior of future presidents than any election. While unity and bipartisanship sound pleasant, they should not become justifications for lawlessness.

The Democrats, come January, will hold the White House and sizable majorities in the House and Senate, including a filibuster-proof 60 seats or very close to it in the Senate. (And Republican senators from states with Democratic governors could be given cabinet positions, and the District of Columbia could be given one or more senators.) The Republican party may be on the way out of existence. The question is what we can make of the Democrats, what we can persuade them to do. If they are truly democrats with a small d, they will have a lot to accomplish and almost no excuses not to do so.

They can begin with the positive steps advocated by Obama during his campaign:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/37327 We can build on those advances by insisting on more decisive measures to shift our resources from war to peace and green energy. We can start now by lobbying the president elect to hire and appoint as his staff and administration individuals who represent change we can believe in.

Perriello Victory Rally

davidswanson — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:48:38 -0500

"Tom Tom Tom!" chants by huge crowd at the Gravity Lounge in Charlottesville VA right across the street from Virgil Goode's office, where we have so often marched, protested, and sat-in, but never been represented. Perriello is talking "change" and "a new kind of politics," and the applause is ecstatic. People are commenting to each other about how long they've been losing. They're still scared to believe they've won something. Perriello is talking "unity." Huge applause. Very brief remarks. Now he's doing more interviews. I'm not sure he'll be a progressive leader. I am sure that the worst member of the United States Congress must now seek other employment.

Congratulations, Mr. President!

Chip — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:40:14 -0500

Stephen Colbert congratulated America's first Hawaiian president.
McCain concedes; says the failure is his, not his supporters. Calls Sarah Palin an impressive new voice in the Republican party.
McCain wished Obama Godspeed, called him the man who will be his President, and called on all Americans to believe in the promise and greatness of America.
Reverend Jesse Jackson moved to tears of joy.
Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) reflected on the sacrifices of all the people, famous and not, who contributed to the Civil Rights movement, helping to make this moment possible.
Huge crowd fills Grant Park, Chicago, to celebrate President Obama. He'll be speaking at the top of the next hour (11 PM CST; 12 Midnight EST).
Senator Clinton extends congratulations.
President-Elect Obama's motorcade enroute to Grant Park.
Bishop T.D. Jakes (Potter's House) prays for a restoration of civility, that we stand in a greater dimension of truth to heal the breaches of anger and hostility.
President-Elect Obama arrives on stage; is now at the podium. Crowd estimated at 200,000.

We are, and always will be, the United States of America!...Change has come to America!

This victory belongs to you! This victory proves that after 2 centuries, government for, of, and by the people, has not perished from this earth.

The values we share: self-reliance, individual liberty and national unity.

Democratic Party has won a great victory, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress.

To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I hear your voices, I need your help, I will be your President, too.

The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope. That's the true genius of America, that America can change. Our union can be perfected.

Out of many, we are one. Yes! We can! God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America!

Read the full text of President Elect Obama's speech

Vice-President Elect Biden greets President-Elect Obama on stage, hugs in congratulations.
Reverend Jackson cries joyous tears.
Oprah is awe-struck: "It feels like hope won. It feels like America did the right thing. It feels like there's a shift in consciousness - like something really big and bold....It feels like anything is now possible....Colin Powell understood when he said: 'All villages matter!'"
The couples embrace; family members join them, they wave and then exit the stage.

Far-Right Pundits Cling Bitterly to 'Center-Right Country' Lie

Bob Fertik — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:39:48 -0500

"America is a center-right country." As ThinkProgress documents, those 6 words are coming out of the mouths of every far-right pundit and politician. But what makes this claim absolutely ludicrous is the fact that two center-left Democrats won a landslide victory, while center-right Republicans are becoming extinct!

Here's a quick list of prominent Senators (Republicans in italics). Two of the few remaining center-right Republicans - Norm Coleman and Gordon Smith - are heading towards recounts. In 2010, Arlen Specter will voluntarily or involuntarily retire. If these dominoes all fall, there will be exactly 1 center-right Senator out of 100, not surprisingly from the quirky state of Maine.

Left-Left	Center-Left	Center	Center-Right	Right-Right
Boxer Feingold Harkin Kennedy Sanders	Biden Feinstein Levin Obama Reid	Bayh Lieberman Nelson, Ben Nelson, Bill Snowe	~~Coleman~~ Collins ~~Smith~~ Specter	Cornyn Graham Hatch Kyl McConnell

Update 1: Here's an update from Election Night courtesy of Amanda Terkel: