I think that it represents a landmark, the kind that often is apparent only in hindsight, but due to contrast is far more visible at the time it occurs. There has been a great deal of talk concerning “Obamaniacs” seeing unicorns and rainbows and believing that Obama cannot fail, and as an enthusiastic Mac user, I recognize the scorn. But the enthusiasm is not because the one I support is infallible and capable of miracles, but because it represents a solid, capable alternative to something which I considered so full of fault that it was driving me mad.

The promise represented in the coming inauguration is that of a president who will not regularly violate the law and rend the Constitution; who will fill positions based on ability, not affiliation; who will support the people over corporations rather than the other way around; who will end wars and not start them; who will respect science and intelligence rather than trying to force them to suit a political agenda; who will act thoughtfully and not foolishly; who will listen and include, and not shut out and belittle; who will uphold our cherished traditions and principles instead of staining them; and so much more, but in short, a president who will do at the very least a competent job based on reason and sound judgment, and not a president who will do almost everything wrong.

The Change that is so often spoken of is not one of miracles, but rather a change simply to undramatic, calm, and reliable competence. After seeing the country taken in the direction it has been taken, it is like being on an airplane piloted by a drunken, suicidal maniac and we’re going to crash into that mountain soon; Obama is the competent pilot coming to shoulder the other one aside. That’s why winning the election was such a relief but not the unrestrained joy I had expected; with the ship of state in such peril, it seems like it’s taking forever for that badly-needed change to take place, and the inauguration, not the election, represents the moment when we start to change direction.

You’ve probably heard about this already: how the Obamas wanted to move into Blair House early so their two daughters would be able to start going to school. Blair House is the ideal choice because it is a secure venue and would be fair easier and cheaper to manage. The Bush White House said: “No.” In fact, they said more than that–they said that they were “appalled” by the request. Yes, how dare the president-elect and his family ask to live for a few weeks in Blair House, which they are scheduled to move into anyway come January 15th, so as to (a) avoid having to move house twice, (b) making it easier for their two little girls to attend school, and (c) save a lot of taxpayer dollars.

Why did the White House turn them down? Because, they claimed, Blair House was “booked” until the 15th. They did not specify, and it seems clear now: they were lying. The only dignitary reportedly scheduled to stay at Blair House is former Australian Prime Minister John Howard. On January 13, Bush will award Howard, Tony Blair, and Alvaro Uribe the Presidential Medal of Freedom; Howard receives it primarily for his backing and loyalty to Bush during the Iraq War. In other words, a last-minute payoff to political allies for their backing in a bloody, unnecessary, and illegal war. Which is so deserving of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Blair and Uribe decided to stay at hotels despite the offer of Blair House.

Still, what’s wrong with booking the house for someone else? Well, first of all, Blair House is huge. It’s a complex of four townhouses with 119 rooms and 35 bathrooms covering 70,000 square feet. You could house four large families there, complete with entourages, in luxurious, roomy splendor, and they would never have to cross paths or even see each other. Every member of each family could even have their own private bathroom. The fact that Bush offered Blair House to Blair and Uribe in addition to Howard clearly demonstrates that the guest mansion is big enough for more than just one guest with entourage. Second, there are reports that Howard was not booked to stay there until after the Obamas made the request, meaning that the White House would not have had to cancel anyone’s stay even if Blair House wasn’t big enough to accommodate a large number of people.

In short, Blair House was not “booked,” it was completely available for the Obamas to move in. Essentially, the Bushes simply and pettily decided to lie and snub the Obama family at the cost of both security and taxpayer expense. Very big of them. Yet another high note upon which to end this administration.

One of the things that we hated about Bush was his complete one-sidedness. Even in a purely symbolic way, he was unable to reach out to the other side. Even being in the same room with someone one the other side of the spectrum was not something you’d expect of him. His harsh partisanship was one of his worst points.

Now, with Obama choosing both Rick Warren and Joseph Lowery to give the invocation and the benediction at Obama’s inaugural, there is a huge uproar: liberals are livid that Obama invited Warren.

True: Warren’s views on homosexuality are galling. It is easy for one to think that Obama could have done better–and maybe he could have. But I think it is important to remember a few things, like the fact that choosing a religious figure from the other side of the social divide who hasn’t made some despicable remark about gays, Jews, women, Muslims, or whomever, would not be an easy task. You’d have to go to the B -list, or maybe even the C-list. Falwell is no longer with us, but he was the kind of person we’re talking about here. Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Rod Parsley, John Hagee… you get the idea.

Another thing to remember is that having Warren give the invocation is not anywhere near the same as agreeing with his policies. As Obama pointed out, Warren invited him to speak to his congregation despite Obama’s views; this did not signal Warren’s intent to change his views on abortion or homosexuality and more than Warren’s invitation signals a sea change for Obama. Though the Saddleback invitation is not the same as an inaugural role, it’s not like Obama’s inviting Warren to write his social policy.

This is what we knew Obama would do: reach out to the other side. It’s the kind of politics we used to see on Capitol Hill before the Republicans went rabid, where politicians from both sides were truly congenial and worked well together despite their differences. One thing to keep in mind was the strange relationship between Jerry Falwell and Larry Flynt. At Falwell’s death, Flynt said:

My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.

Don’t you think that says something?

Obama is trying to do this: recognize a human connection with people regardless of their views, and through that, building a bridge of understanding between them. You don’t change hearts and minds by shoving the opposition into a the corner, never showing them respect, never inviting them in.

Something that is going rather underreported is that Warren is not alone; Obama’s choice of Joseph Lowery is being almost completely ignored, as if he didn’t matter as much. Obama was expected to choose a liberal icon–just not a conservative icon as well. Wasn’t that the kind of one-sidedness we’ve been complaining about for the past eight years? Wouldn’t we have respected Bush a lot more had he done this kind of thing often? What if Jesse Jackson had been invited to give the invocation for Dubya, and not just for show? Would not that kind of behavior garnered Bush more respect, given that Jackson upsets many on the right as much as Warren upsets us on the left?

I think that what Obama did does not deserve the criticism that the left is heaping on him for it. Again, he could have chosen someone on the right with less controversy (though not without sacrificing cross-aisle cachet and credentials), but generally speaking, this is what Obama promised: to truly respect all sides as a means of winning hearts and minds, bringing them to a common ground that will have far more value, even though there will be far less visceral satisfaction than there would be if we just ran roughshod over the other side. Also remember that Obama’s skill is not in sacrificing his principles, but using this common-ground approach to being the other side over to ours.

If we want to make things like gay marriage a reality sooner rather than later, then you bring the opponents in from the cold and let them get used to sitting around the same fire.

It’ll be nice to have a president who values the people of the nation at least as much as he values its institutions. Over the past eight years, Bush has given far higher priority to energy companies, financial institutions, drug companies, media corporations, so forth and so on. Whenever there was a conflict of interest between the American people and these organizations, Bush always acted against the interests of the people.

In the last days of his administration, Bush is spending most of his time enacting all manner of new edicts which essentially do all the things he couldn’t even bring himself to do before, a massive free-for-all, a giveaway to the fat cats and a serious reaming for the American people. Among the slew of new scandalous decisions: allowing more farm manure runoff, more mining waste runoff, more pollution near national parks, uranium mining in the Grand Canyon, allowing concealed weapons in national parks, allowing religion to be used to deny women abortions, transporting toxic materials through populated areas, allowing truckers to drive longer hours without sleep, giving more freedom to fisheries to damage the environment, and more corporate activity that could kill off endangered species.

Fortunately, there is talk of Congress employing a loophole which could–hopefully–easily repeal all of Bush’s changes in the last two months of his presidency. If not, then this last-minute fire sale to corporate interests, this lame-duck assault on the safety and rights of the American people could prove to be a major distraction for the Obama administration.

At the very least, we won’t have a president who is actively out to harm the American people. As Keith Olbermann noted, it’s almost as if Bush decided, upon his election, to do the most damage to the country possible. Or as Aaron Sorkin put it about a fictional Republican, he’s someone who says he loves America but clearly can’t stand Americans.

Obama (emphasis mine):

“[Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Chu’s] appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action,” Obama said.

That’s a 100%, 180-degree reversal from the current policy of politicizing science and manufacturing facts to fit an agenda. Night and day.

Good morning, America!

I know that I have often pointed out that right-wingers blame the other side for everything all the time, but still, they’re going to extremes with this one.

For years after Bush took office, the wingnuts claimed that everything bad about the economy was Clinton’s fault. The idea was that Clinton dug us so deep into a hole that Bush could not possibly be blamed for anything bad that happened economically (though any progress was immediately awarded to Bush).

So, naturally, since Bush, after eight years in office, is handing off a far worse recession, maybe even a depression, to his successor, Obama will get the same grace period, right?

Ha! Of course not. Obama won’t even take office until two months from now, but the wingnuts aren’t wasting any time–despite Obama not even being the president-elect for a whole two weeks yet, the right-wing talking heads are already blaming our current downturn on him, calling it “The Obama Recession.”

What’s the job description for a wingnut? “No critical thinking skills required”? Oh, I’m sure they’ll have some rationalization as to how it just happened to work out the way they’re claiming. I’m just surprised that they are being so transparent about it. I expected them to wait until a few months after Obama took office to start blaming everything on him. But now, anyone who accepts this has to believe that Obama has been working for years behind the scenes to engineer this recession, or that he immediately inherits the recession and the blame for it a few months before he’s able to do anything.

Like the claims made by the wingnuts during the campaign, this new line of crap will be believed only by the converted, by the Kool-Aid drinkers and the Loyal Bushies. The blatant nature of the lie is so transparent, however, that this stands to only help Obama with the moderates.

So, keep spouting, Limbaugh, Hannity, and all the others–keep spouting this laughable lie. The more you do, the more you highlight the fact that it’s a lie, and the more people will remember that it’s a lie for quite some time. You could have waited a decent amount of time, until after Bush had faded away and people had been hurting for a while, and then started blaming Obama–and a lot more people would have bought into it. But now, whenever you try to do that over the next few years, all anyone has to do is to remind everyone that you’ve been saying the same thing since two months before Obama even took office–and at that, the accusation will fall flat.

A lot of non-theistic or theo-phobic Democrats have been kind of worried about Obama and his religion; some felt that he was putting on a show, and others were concerned that his support of faith-based organizations signaled that he was a closet Christian waiting to continue Bush’s legacy of merging church and state. I think both were wrong.

From an interview Obama gave in March 2004, before his famous speech at the Democratic convention–this is pretty much what I want to hear from a Christian President of the United States:

Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I’m a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root ion this country.

As I said before, in my own public policy, I’m very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics.

Now, that’s different from a belief that values have to inform our public policy. I think it’s perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values that inform my politics that are appropriate to talk about.

A standard line in my stump speech during this campaign is that my politics are informed by a belief that we’re all connected. That if there’s a child on the South Side of Chicago that can’t read, that makes a difference in my life even if it’s not my own child. If there’s a senior citizen in downstate Illinois that’s struggling to pay for their medicine and having to chose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer even if it’s not my grandparent. And if there’s an Arab American family that’s being rounded up by John Ashcroft without the benefit of due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

I can give religious expression to that. I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, we are all children of God. Or I can express it in secular terms. But the basic premise remains the same. I think sometimes Democrats have made the mistake of shying away from a conversation about values for fear that they sacrifice the important value of tolerance. And I don’t think those two things are mutually exclusive.

This is not someone who says that god told him to invade Iraq; this is not someone who is trying to make religious dogma into law, whether it comes from true belief or pandering to a constituency. This is not someone who believes that you can only be moral if you are religious. This is someone who understands and upholds the Separation of Church and State.

Bush, I would be suspicious of, precisely because of his record: he was unabashedly willing to turn Christian law into U.S. law, Christian dogma into federal policy. When conservative Christian politicians talk about faith and religious values “informing” their official actions, they usually mean something else. Even when they pretend that religion is just showing them a moral way, the end result is usually an unacceptable intrusion of religious rules into public law. That’s how we get the whole abortion debate; that’s how we get bad family planning rules; that’s how we get judges willing to allow courtrooms to become display rooms for religious ornamentation. This is more than religion “informing” policy and law, it is religion dictating policy and law.

But what Obama is talking about is something else. He’s not talking about transferring the end product of religious faith into public policy and law; he’s talking about using the basic moral lessons, the beginning of religious faith–not the church doctrine–acting as a guide to making decisions. There’s a huge difference there.

For example, “love thy neighbor” is a moral principle; it tells us to show compassion to others, a general rule which addresses our own actions and from where our moral direction should come. But “homosexuality is bad” is something completely different: it is not a moral principle directing our own actions, it is a political interpretation of scripture written in primitive times, which proscribes the actions of others. Not a direction, but a conclusion. What Obama refers to as “religious certainty.” Night and day.

Obama’s take is the former: to learn lessons from the Christian faith which set a moral compass, which speak to our own feelings and compassion, which guide our hearts. This is completely different from someone taking the end product of organized religion and its political process and trying to implement it as the law which all must obey. Night and day.

I am an agnostic with leanings toward Deism, and I fear the marriage of church and state as a prelude to theocratic fascism. This is not to say that I hate Christianity or even dislike it. Nor that I need to see organized religion banned from the Earth. I simply have seen too much of the worst of Christianity applied to public policy and law and know that the consequences can only get worse if such continues.

What I do not fear are Christian principles–if they are indeed Christian principles; but not old-testament principles excused by a profession of the love of Christ. Yes, if they are a call to self-discipline and spiritual growth; but no, not the application of the political will of a stagnant “religious” body more intent on enforcing rigid dogma based on fear and hate than it is on nurturing spiritual growth and compassion. There are people who follow the teachings and traditions of Christ, and then there are people who dress themselves in the splendor of his clothing and then go out with picket signs saying “God Hates Fags.”

As I have said before, if Christianity lived up to its name and held above all else the words and actions of Christ, the world would be a lot better place. But too many Christians do nothing of the sort; despite professing Christ as their redeemer, their lord and savior, or their favorite philosopher, they base their moral compass and their corporeal actions upon the more primitive and even feral guidelines of the old testament. Instead of turning the other cheek, they want an eye for an eye; instead of “he who is without sin,” they prefer to smite the wicked, with themselves being the judge of who is wicked and who is righteous. But it need not even be new vs. old testament–but rather simply following the spirit, the true philosophy, that being one of morality turned inward instead of outward, of showing compassion and assuming spiritual responsibility for one’s own self. You just don’t see that too often.

I suppose that this dovetails with the Republican mindset, where you have people professing an undying love of America but who clearly hate the people living in it; these “Christians” profess a love of Christ but turn away from him when it comes to his clearly expressed words and actions. It’s about professing love for something but rejecting it in fact, professing humility but acting arrogantly.

That is why, despite Obama’s history, despite his late decision to become a churchgoer, despite his exposure to other faiths and his tolerance for them, Obama strikes me as more of a genuine Christian than any of the fundamentalists of the religious right who praise Jesus but self-righteously practice intolerance, suspicion, and hate.

Obama, however–he’s a Christian I can believe in. And, I believe, a model for those who think faith should be a part of the political arena. As with all my other beliefs, my agnostic side tells me that I have to wait and see what the facts bear out. But as much as I can have faith, in this matter I do.

Here’s a doozy:

CNN Anchor Tony Harris: How will we — “we,” big “we” — make this work? I’m talking Republicans, Democrats, independents, Libertarians. Republicans — do Republicans want to work with a President-elect Obama?

Bay Buchanan: Well, it all depends on which direction the country — Obama wants to take the country. If he is really going to govern from the center and recognizes that the nation is center to right, then we’re gonna work with him, just as we worked with Bill Clinton to get welfare reform.

In other words, “we’ll be bipartisan as long as the other side does what we want them to do.” Yeah, that’s bipartisanship.

I am really, really glad that the Dems have won such a commanding majority, else we’d be in for four years of rather horrific gridlock. Remember, the Republicans in the Senate used the filibuster at least three times more in the last session of Congress than it had ever been used before; they blocked virtually every single Democratic initiative out the gate. Even as they blamed Democrats as being the “do nothing” Congress, they crowed openly about how being obstructionist “worked for them.”

Republicans have, for too long, been far too greedy, far too insistent on having everything go their way. Remember when they got more of their judicial appointments confirmed than any party in living history–98 percent were approved–and then screamed that the Democrats were being “obstructionist” because they refused to rubber-stamp the most egregiously extremist and corrupt right-wing judges that even some conservatives gagged at?

For me, the best representation of this attitude was that one Republican woman who complained about Starbucks coffee cups when it was found that more of them had left-leaning quotes printed on them than right-leaning quotes: “oh well, I’m not surprised. I’m used to being under-represented.” This was 2005, when Republicans had held the White House, both houses of Congress, had a stronger voice on the Supreme Court, and had a media filled with right-wing voices–and here was this woman whining about how she was “under-represented” because her coffee cups disagreed with her more often than not.

The problem is, Republicans like Buchanan don’t seem to realize that their bargaining position has been whittled down to almost nothing. With even more Republican Senate seats coming up for election in the next round (the last round where Republicans stand to lose the most, after Democrats won big the last two times), there will probably be at least a few Republicans who won’t want to be held up as the ones who blocked progress.

While Republicans may be able to hold on to the barest sliver of obstructionist power, the fact is that they are marginalized now more than they have been for a long time–maybe more than they have been ever, all things considered. To still go about with such arrogant hubris, demanding things be done their way or not at all, is flirting with disaster.

Obama revealed his economic stimulus package, and it looks pretty clear that he is staying true to his word: that he believes in an economy that works from the bottom up, that it grows not when you give massive tax breaks and giveaways to corporations and the wealthy (in the hope that they’ll decide to spend some of that on hiring people so the money will work its way back into the economy), but that it works best when you give the money instead directly to the lowest ranks of society–jobs for the lower & middle class instead of cash gifts to the rich, for example–knowing that they will spend the money in ways that will kick-start the economy. In other words, cut out the wasteful middleman who usually takes a huge slice of cream off the top.

Obama’s economic plan has at its heart a move to start rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure. To me, this is a no-brainer–as Roger K. Lewis as the WaPo points out, infrastructure is a “capital expense” because “money spent for labor and materials yields something durable, useful and often financially productive.” Bush just blew $700 billion on bailouts for irresponsible banks, much of which we might never see again. Obama might have gotten behind it because he knew that fighting for a more responsible package would have simply made things worse, not to mention helped lose him the election, but I have little doubt that his approach would have been far different had he been the author and the president who pushed it. (And he did push an alternate plan which would have given more money to people trying to keep their homes rather than the banks that were taking them away.)

This infrastructure push is one example of that mindset: spend money on things that will bring a return and boost the economy, rather than the right-wing method of throwing wads of cash at people already flush with it in the hope that enough will fall through the cracks and create some jobs somewhere. Obama’s plan has heft–invest in roads & bridges, railways, seaports, water, energy systems, and schools. The immediate effect is to create many new healthy construction jobs, pump money into the lower & middle class, pump up local economies where the projects take place, and then sit back and profit from the results for the next half century.

Believe it or not, Bush has been against such projects. And we wonder why our bridges are collapsing, why our construction jobs are disappearing, why local economies are drying up.

Another element of Obama’s plan is to give money to states to support their faltering social support systems–buying food for families that don’t have enough money, extending unemployment benefits for people who have lost their jobs for long periods of time–you know, frivolous stuff. Or what right-wingers call “welfare”–something they approve of if it’s a billionaire who just lost his yacht, but not if it’s a hardworking average Joe who’s trying to work but can’t find it, or a single mother working two jobs to raise her kids but still can’t make ends meet. These people aren’t investing in junk bonds or stashing their loot in the Caymans. They’re spending pretty much everything at home, money that goes right back into the economy. But conservatives see these people as greedy welfare queens who don’t deserve it. Give Paris Hilton a bigger inheritance instead–after all, she earned it more, didn’t she?

Obama is also looking to help out the auto industry, but also seems intent on using that influence to help steer them toward those green technologies he’s been talking about.

In short, Obama is not wasting any time in doing everything he can to deliver on his promises, and to create a stimulus package which has the best promise of having the strongest impact on the economy.

Even as he remains careful not to officially kick at the heels of the current administration, he has made it perfectly clear that he seriously intends to waste no time in getting to work–and already he sounds smarter, more determined, and more effective that the administration still in power.

The hope that comes from the results of this election is not just pipe dreams and rainbows; the change that comes is palpable and very real. It’s not just a slogan, it’s something very real, very different. It’s not a matter of race, it’s not even a matter of party. There are a number of qualities which are significantly different. And with the new administration, we will see something that we have sorely lacked for the pasty eight years. There is no telling what will happen, exactly, but there are certain truths which promise the hope that I and so many others now feel.

We will no longer have an anti-intellectual president who can so easily be influenced by the last voice to speak to him. This is more than just a matter of someone who says dumb stuff once in a while; in the office of the president, I want the smartest person I can think of. Call me elitist, but in January, the IQ in the Oval Office will climb significantly.

We will no longer have a government run by cronies and insiders. Whatever you think of Obama, he’s his own man. He’s not a some dupe who can do little more than just bring a name to the table, winning a presidency his staff to control. Obama’s staff will be chosen by him, not the other way around; Obama will use them, not the other way around. With Bush, it was all about who surrounded him; with Obama, those around him will inform and support, not control. You won’t see this president expressing surprise at the policies that his vice president dictates.

We will have a truly humble presidency. Not a weak one; that we’ve seen amply demonstrated in the past year or more. Humility is not weakness, it is a strength. It is the ability to see that you are fallible, recognizing your weaknesses–and thus being more able to defeat them. Bush, in 2000, said that a humble president would garner respect–and in that, he was right, only that he was not even close to being that president. He was arrogant to the extreme. Even now, the right-wingers like Novak are trying to rationalize how the “mandate” Bush supposedly had in 2004 is not Obama’s despite his far more commanding victory. But Obama is not claiming a mandate, nor, like Bush in 2006, is he claiming that the voice of the people in their shift is somehow an excuse for him to do whatever he planned to do anyway. Obama has voiced that he is not just president of those who elected him. Bush claimed that also, but never acted as such. Betcha Obama lives up to his word a lot better.

We have a president who respects the law. Already they have shown the signals: in an organizational chart they have recently released, the Obama team not only puts the vice president within the Executive branch, but they put the president and his office all under the Constitution, which resides above everything else.

We will have a president who is a constitutional scholar, not one who treats the Constitution like toilet paper.

We will have a president who will garner international respect, not embarrass us.

This will not be an administration that will start wars for ideological reasons, or without a well-thought-out exit strategy, or any war lacking an honest and respectable rationale.

This will not be an administration which will casually and repeatedly violate the law and then unabashedly refuse to prosecute itself.

This will not be an administration which will stack the ranks of non-partisan offices with ultra-partisan plants.

Obama will not vacation for two months out of the year.

Obama will not allow industries to waltz into the White House and write their own government policy.

Obama will not institute policies of pre-emptive strike, torture, or spying on his own people.

I know: I am setting the bar too low by comparing what we know Obama will and will not do relative to the Bush administration. After the worst presidency in history, anyone would shine.

But it is such a relief that even these basic principles will be covered, that it is reason to view the future with hope. Right now, our expectations are simply that our president will not be a disastrous idiot.

And who knows–Obama may even exceed our expectations. Call me an optimistic fool.