Low oil prices spell trouble for Venezuela, Latin America

As the global recession begins to slow demand for energy, oil prices are expected to head even lower, from the current price of around $35 dollars a barrel, to as low as $10 dollars according to some sources.

This dramatic decline in prices is already causing severe damage to the Venezuelan economy, which lives and dies by the oil industry. Here is a nice concise article on the toxic combination of low oil income and 20-plus percent inflation that could spell trouble for our obnoxious friend Hugo Chavez. Latin America is becoming increasingly interesting, in my view, and I expect we will be talking about South and Central America quite a bit in the next few years.

The most interesting thing in terms of history and political economies, is that we are undergoing a severe world-wide economic crisis at the tail-end of a massive globalization cycle (historically not the first by the way). This is particularly interesting for Latin America, which has yet to work its way through the fog of cold-war era ideological struggles. Communism and Socialism are still very much alive in parts of Latin America, and the current crisis will likely provide fodder for proponents.

Even more interesting, is that the same crisis could have the opposite effect for Chavez - the current socialist standard bearer - as his support has slipped in recent months. If the Venezuelan economy gets much worse, he could be in real trouble. If things do get worse, expect him to become more vocal, once again, in his attacks on the United States and neighboring adversaries.

Bailout Business:

I plan on writing at length on this as soon as I can find time. For now, this video is somewhat helpful. I do, however, disagree with much of what Mr. Feldstein had to say in the video about whether the Big Three have brought down wages to the level of their foreign competition - with the help of the United Autoworker's Union, they have. I also, strongly disagree with his perception of American products. He and others are simply wrong when they say that Detroit does not make quality automobiles. It really irks me that somehow, a bunch of economists and policy wonks think they know anything about automobiles while, at the same time, they ignore reports from the car industry press that show American car makers are racking up the accolades.

Anyway, the video, which encapsulates some of the basic arguments can be found here. Below a piece I included from the Detroit Free Press that really dispels some of the myths about Detroit's automakers. I strongly recomend reading it - its short and to the point.

Myth No. 1: Nobody buys their vehicles.

Reality: General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC sold 8.5 million vehicles in the United States last year and millions more around the world. GM outsold Toyota by about 1.2 million vehicles in the United States last year and holds a U.S. lead over Toyota of about 560,000 so far this year. Globally, GM in 2007remained the world's largest automaker, selling 9,369,524 vehicles worldwide -- about 3,000 more than Toyota. Ford outsold Honda by about 850,000 and Nissan by more than 1.3 million vehicles in the United States last year. Chrysler sold more vehicles here than Nissan and Hyundai combined in 2007 and so far this year.

Myth No. 2: They build unreliable junk.

Reality: The creaky, leaky vehicles of the 1980s and '90s are long gone. Consumer Reports recently found that "Ford's reliability is now on par with good Japanese automakers." The independent J.D. Power Initial Quality Study scored Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, GMC, Mercury, Pontiac and Lincoln brands' overall quality as high or higher than that of Acura, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Scion, Volkswagen and Volvo. Power rated the Chevrolet Malibu the highest-quality midsize sedan. Both the Malibu and Ford Fusion scored better than the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry.

Myth No. 3: They build gas-guzzlers.

Reality: All of the Detroit Three build midsize sedans the Environmental Protection Agency rates at 29-33 miles per gallon on the highway. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Malibu gets 33 m.p.g. on the highway, 2 m.p.g. better than the best Honda Accord. The most fuel-efficient Ford Focus has the same highway fuel economy ratings as the most efficient Toyota Corolla. The most fuel-efficient Chevrolet Cobalt has the same city fuel economy and better highway fuel economy than the most efficient non-hybrid Honda Civic. A recent study by Edmunds.com found that the Chevrolet Aveo subcompact is the least expensive car to buy and operate.

Myth No. 4: They already got a $25-billion bailout.

Reality: None of that money has been lent out and may not be for more than a year. In addition, it can, by law, be used only to invest in future vehicles and technology, so it has no effect on the shortage of operating cash the companies face because of the economic slowdown that's killing them now.

Myth No. 5: GM, Ford and Chrysler are idiots for investing in pickups and SUVs.

Reality:The domestic companies' lineup has been truck-heavy, but Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz and BMW have all spent billions of dollars on pickups and SUVs because trucks are a large and historically profitable part of the auto industry. The most fuel-efficient full-size pickups from GM, Ford and Chrysler all have higher EPA fuel economy ratings than Toyota and Nissan's full-size pickups.

Myth No. 6: They don't build hybrids.

Reality: The Detroit Three got into the hybrid business late, but Ford and GM each now offers more hybrid models than Honda or Nissan, with several more due to hit the road in early 2009.

My First Installment of "Keeping Obama Honest"

Well, that was fun. Now that we stained our panting five-year-old faces with enough Obama Kool-Aid to start a worldwide diabetes epidemic, it's time to head outside and get back to work.

My face is as stained as any other - perhaps more so. But it is now time to switch from get-Obama-elected mode, to keep-him-honest mode.

Along those lines, I will be writing about some things to look for that could go sour or stay sour in an Obama administration. Just one item today:

Bolivia:
Things have been less than perfect in Bolivia for quite some time - for a number reasons. But two things make me believe that we will be hearing a lot more about the South American country very soon. The first, is that Bolivia holds the world's largest known supply of lithium. Just for information's sake, lithium is fast becoming the most popular component of battery technology. Lithium helps power laptops and cell phones already and is becoming a favorite of the auto industry for use in hybrids. There have also been conflicts over coca production and natural gas.
Political science teaches us that there is a significant correlation between countries with persistent political problems, and countries that are extremely rich in just one, or a few, highly valuable natural resources. Think about the oil rich nations, but think more about where you found the most valuable commodities like diamonds. Think Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast.

Add to that, a potential conflict between geo-political personalities. The first is Bolivian president Evo Morales, who, has considered nationalizing the countries lithium supplies, stating in essence that he wants to protect those resources from plunder by industrialized countries. There have long been tensions between Morales and Bush for that very reason.

I trust Obama's judgment a great deal more, but he has a second major problem: Greg Craig.

Craig is a chief foreign policy advisor to Obama that has been at the center of controversy in Bolivia. While he has an impressive resume and track record of working on behalf of human rights in Latin American, Tibet and elsewhere, his legal representation of former Bolivian President Gonzálo Sánchez de Lozada and former Minister of Defense Carlos Sánchez Berzaín, is cause for concern.

The two men are under indictment for their alleged role in a government sponsored massacre of civilians. Craig has said that he does not agree with the interpretation of the current Bolivian government, but instead, claims that protesters became violent, causing the military to respond.

The International Herald Tribune reported in July that the matter has caused a serious rift between the Bush administration and Bolivian officials - one that Craig may be ill-equipped to repair. Some 20,000 protesters railed against U.S. officials at the embassy in La Paz, drawing praise from current president Morales.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a non-partisan research group dedicated to Latin American relations, said that "incontestably, then-president Sánchez de Lozada ordered troops into El Alto and Sánchez Berzaín gave them the green light to open fire on unarmed civilians; one simply cannot deny the facts of the case."

Craig's defense of two men, who the Bush administration later gave political asylum, has been a sticking point with human rights activists. And another of Craig's clients, Panamanian national Pedro Miguel González Pinzón, has also caused controversy. Pinzon, now a member of the Pannamanian Senate, is accused of murder by the Bush administration and has been at the center of controversy over Panama's signing of a US-Panama free-trade agreement.

But, Obama has parted with Craig on the matter, being one among many U.S. officials to oppose the deal until Pinzon is is brought to justice. The conflict of interest is, however, pretty obvious. For his part, Obama has pushed for more attention to the needs of Latin America.

And Morales, was very complimentary of Obama's victory. Morales said that he was looking forward to working with Obama and hosting him if he chose to visit. Whether Obama will keep Craig in his administration is yet to be seen. My sense is that Obama will not be as reactive to Morales, who has accused Bush of plotting a coup as a way to gain access to Bolivian lithium. Obama will likely be less driven by capitalism than by warming relations - also a good way to gain access to Bolivian lithium , regardless of whether private companies or the Bolivian government own the resources.

We will see very soon what type of president Obama will be, this will be just one interesting test that could indicate whether we have reached a true sea change in U.S. foreign policy, or just elected another president.

With respect to Craig, it is important to understand that lawyers often defend the indefensible - it's part of being a lawyer. With respect to how Craig would advise Obama if selected, it would appear that he has a very modern and pragmatic approach that the COHA said would represent a profound step away from flawed Bush policies that have undermined democracy for the sake of economic goals. Here is a sample of what they had to say:

Craig proposed that the U.S. engage in a multilateral approach to hemispheric diplomacy which respects truly democratic governments, regardless of their political or economic orientation, in order to promote strong links between the North and South. He emphasized the importance of recognizing the sovereignty of other regional governments, stating that the U.S. has “suffered” as a whole because the Bush administration “has cared more about outcomes than about process.” This is a reasonable and pragmatic approach to politics which can be traced to Craig’s unfairly maligned legal profession. In giving his sophisticated analysis, he correctly points out that by patently intervening in free and fair elections in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Bolivia, the U.S. has not only compromised its own democratic values but also has elicited deep-rooted animosity from its southern neighbors.

Interference in electoral processes is problematic because it allows the U.S. to dictate another nation’s internal and external affairs. Manipulated trade agreements present a similar dilemma. Under President Bush, the U.S. has exploited its dominant trading position by negotiating targeted trade pacts with close political allies. In the era of free trade, this piecemeal bilateral approach appears to have jeopardized any prospect for integrated hemispheric ties. Some regional specialists take the position that these bilateral trade agreements bypass social and economic protections otherwise provided by multilateral agreements. According to Craig, U.S. trade policies favored by the Bush administration have “accentuated division and hostility in the region … against the United States.”

If Craig stays true to his stated principles, he could actually be of great help. We are in grave need of a foreign policy that is truly supportive of human rights and democracy. Democracy is not something we can promote when it suits us and ignore when it does not. And democracy is not something that should exclude countries that are less market-centric.

Is America a "center-right" country?

So is it really true that America is a "center-right" country?

The popular answer is, well, yes.

But I think that notion may now be a bit off the mark. While media types love to say it and conservative commentators love to scream it, it just doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.

I remember back when Obama was actually struggling to pull ahead of Sen. John McCain, there were a number of polls that showed the country, by-and-large, actually agreed with Obama's stances on the issues - they were just not sure about the man himself. It actually angered me a great deal.

We now know that he eventually won them over.

But that hasn't stopped the media from floating this notion that he won because he ran as a conservative. A candidate with any sense always cozies up to the middle, but one can hardly consider proposals such as massive infrastructure investment, expansion of health-care, tax increases on the wealthy and dovish foreign policy, to be the mark of a conservative. And if those were not the center-pieces of the Obama campaign, then I must have been watching a different election.

The fact is, Obama ran as a new breed of pragmatic progressive, much like myself, who are more interested in smart government than one that fits some ideological framework. There is no real blanket ideology for Obama, just a desire to make decisions based on empirical data and sound analysis. The idea is to be ideologically inclusive, applying what works rather than what fits a liberal or conservative framework.

Obama truly has the potential to elbow out the ideologues in either party and really establish a new governing framework, and a new "center."

And more to the point, the country is no longer a center-right country, at least no if you define the "right" by its current standard bearers.

Post election polling shows that the country really has moved to the left. It was not just the economy, or McCain's uneven performance, or his selection of Sarah Palin, or even the uniqueness of Obama's candidacy that won Obama the election. It was the fact that Obama's stances on the issues reflected a genuine shift away from conservatism, and away from our most obstinate ideologies more generally. America actually agrees with Obama.

The charge that Obama is the "most liberal member of the senate" never stuck. It never worked. And it wasn't because Obama became more conservative, but rather, because it is nearly impossible to compartmentalize his individual proposals as being either liberal or conservative - mostly because his policies include elements of both.

The Republicans could not typecast Obama as a standard liberal because, frankly, he isn't one. And they couldn't effectively paint him as having pandered to conservatives either because he was openly critical of them. Truthfully, McCain willingly gave up the middle by opposing his own immigration bill (a huge mistake in light of how many Latino voters broke for Obama), by ending his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, and by choosing Palin as his VP.

Obama never had to move right to capture the middle. The middle came to him. And it's truly puzzling to me that the same people who called Obama's policies "socialist," are now saying that he moved to the right. Huh?

Media Matters, a progressive media watch-dog group, ran a nice article on the subject, highlighting some of the post-election polling.

The results show that voters overwhelmingly agreed with Obama on health care, ending the Bush tax cuts, infrastructure investment and ending the war. Pretty conservative stuff.

And I think that the whole center-left narrative is one that history will eventually reject. But it was true for a time.

President Nixon once saved himself from an embarrassing defeat by appealing to the "silent majority." I'm certain you've heard the famous phrase regurgitated a million times by conservatives who like to think that while, the country might elect an occasional Democrat, Americans are all really moderate Republicans.

And that may well have been true during the late sixties and early seventies when average Americans were growing tired of the constant noise of a vocal minority of civil-rights activists and war protesters. And it might have been true under Reagan, after the country had lost its way on the economy by letting taxes get out of control, and by growing excessive bureaucracy.

And you could even make the case that it was true when Bill Clinton became president, even though his defeat of Bush represented somewhat of a referendum on "trickle-down" economics.

But let us not forget what followed. Even though Clinton had been successful at governing from the middle, his antics in the White House had people sour on his administration. Even though the economy was doing well, the idea of having "more of the same" did not have much appeal.

Al Gore added to this problem his own lack of personality, and still managed to win the popular vote against George W. Bush. I'd venture to guess that if we had never heard of Monica Lewinski, we would never have known President Bush - and for that matter, probably not President-Elect Obama either.

I say this because in many ways, Bush was a gift to the country. Perhaps in the same way that Jimmy Carter was a gift to conservatives.

What the "center-right" argument ignores is that over the last eight years, Americans have watched the right govern, silently. In 2004, as bad as things were, most Americans were still silent. Young Americans, Latinos, and African Americans were still in apathy mode. They were all still cynical that anything could actually change, regardless of who was elected. So Bush got by.

But by the time 2008 rolled around, three new generations of voters had come of age. I came of voting age in July of 1994. I joined the Marines in the winter of 1995. And during the following three years and ten months of military service, I never really felt compelled to vote.

I can recall feeling vaguely Republican - residual tendencies from my father that were likely reinforced by my service - but I never had any major objections to Clinton policy. Aside from the mess in Somalia, and his dorking an intern then lying under oath and making the country look foolish abroad, he did just fine in my eyes. In fact, I was pleased when he gave me several pay increases, grew my G.I. Bill benefits, and made noticeable improvements in the American military.

By the time I left the Marine Corp I had almost no interest in politics at all, largely because things seemed to by moving along fine. I recall thinking that Gore just seemed too fake, and that W. wasn't too bright. But, I could have cared less because it seemed to be one of those "douche bag v. shit sandwich" types of elections. Had I voted, it would likely have been for Ross Perot - but not because he was perfect.

So it didn't really phase me when Bush won the 2000 election, aside from the fact that it did not feel legitimate.

As things progressed for Bush, I was in my own little world trying to make the transition from military life to civilian life. I found a roofing job, then girl friend, then a job selling cars at a dealership that eventually got raided by the FBI for fudging documents. I sold cars a while longer at other places, always uncomfortable about how the sale might affect the family in question.

And most notably, I got to see first hand what happens when economic incentives run counter to moral concerns: the wallet wins.

And then September 11th.

I woke up that morning to a friend telling me that I had to come see what was on TV. And what I saw changed everything.

I went to work dazed, like so many others. I stood on the showroom floor and watched the news all day. We did not sell a single car. In fact, we did not sell anything for quite some time. The car industry was in serious trouble, as were my finances.

A while later they decreased interest rates. It was the start of the now common zero percent interest rates, and 2.9%, and 3.9%. To go with it, Bush passed a bill to incentivize the purchase of large trucks and SUV's as a way to boost sales for the auto industry. I don't recall the exact amount, but buyers could get thousands back in the form of tax credits for purchasing vehicles with a combined gross weight of 7000 pounds or more.

At a time when the country had so obviously fallen pray to our dependence on foreign oil, Bush propped up the sale of our biggest gas guzzlers. It was right about the same time that Hummer sales began to explode.

It was a feeding frenzy, for a moment.

And then things went flat again. The following August, I quit my job and went to college. I was exposed to a lot of things. Conservatives like to call it indoctrination, I like to call it critical thinking.

Just as a side note, most professors don't tell you what to think, they teach you how to think for yourself. Forcing someone to research a topic is not indoctrination. Teaching someone how to spot logical fallacies and empty rhetoric is not indoctrination, its teaching critical thinking. Something that we could all use more of.

For a while, I was still uncertain about why everyone seemed to be so down on Bush. I defended him frequently, though not because I particularly liked him. I guess I've always been the devils advocate. I even recall winning a debate about the possibility of going to war in Iraq. The decision was made by unanimous vote, including a liberal professor of mine who professed that she disagreed with me profoundly, yet agreed that I had won the debate.

A few days prior to that, I had turned in a paper that condemned the World Trade Organization and International Monetary Fund for abusing developing nations. I wrote papers in defense of, and in support of pretty much everything.

The point is, I was all over the map. I did research on a number of major political subjects - all free from the ideological involvement of my professors - and developed a thirst for knowledge and for politics.

I then moved to Oklahoma, where I hoped to pursue something I still love: engineering and industrial design. Instead, I became fixated on politics. In my new school, I was surrounded by conservatives rather than liberals. Class discussions always seemed to begin with a question about some pressing topic, but, end with "the bible says so." So many of my fellow students could not separate school from Sunday school. I began to see holes in conservatism, particularly on social issues.

But, like Sen. John Kerry famously said, I was actually for the war before I opposed it. I was for the Iraq war in the beginning - a fact that my conservative father is quick to recall - and the Afghanistan war before it. I even recall telling him that I almost didn't care if we found weapons of mass destruction or not. I suppose that in my earlier debate prep I had grown a healthy hatred of Saddam Hussein.

But what a lot of people didn't understand, including me, was the degree to which the president had mislead us, and the degree to which the move really played into the hands of terrorists. The more I dove into my study of foreign policy, the more I realized what a mistake I had made - and the country along with me. In a way, I had allowed myself to buy into this notion that somehow it related to the war on terror, that somehow, by saving the people of Iraq from Saddam, we could magically make them love us. Oops.

In 2004, I watched as the country fought about the war, and chose instead to vote on an issue that was far less complicated: gay marriage. I voted, quite proudly, for John Kerry. It was not because of the marriage issue, but because it was abundantly clear that Bush was not very good at his job.

But Bush won, thanks in part to the issue of gay marriage, and thanks also to the fact that the effect of his policies in the economy had yet to be realized. And, to his credit, there had not been another major terror attack.

By 2006 it was pretty clear to the nation that things were not going well. That year, Democrats finally won back the Legislature - with my vote in their favor being washed out by conservative voters in Oklahoma. Hey, I tried. I even campaigned.

By 2008, things had gotten even worse as Bush and Republicans in the Legislature nixed everything the Dems tried. It was too little, too late. And when the economy tanked, it was the final chapter in a long case against Bush, and against conservatism more generally.

The point of all this is to show that, like me, many Americans forged their political ideals in the last decade. In terms of my personal experience, Clinton and Bush are my only presidents. And there are many just like me. There are also older voters who, for the first time, saw why it is so important to vote.

During the 2000 and 2004 elections, we were the "silent majority" that felt disenfranchised.

But now, we are the vocal majority who are repelled by what we saw from supporters of Sarah Palin, disgusted by an economy based helping the wealthy and ignoring the people and the ones who are crying for better health care for our fellow Americans.

We are the ones who want investments in infrastructure, alternative energy and education. And we are the ones who want to see a major shift in foreign policy - a shift towards diplomacy and poverty alleviation.

We, no America, wants to shift towards the rest of the world, and not away. America wants to move away from ethnic divisions, away from unrestrained capitalism, away from policies that ignore the common people in favor of the wealthy. And America wants to move away from partisan thinking.

Americans will always prefer a limited government, but they are beginning to see that limited does not denote effective. Americans are no longer interested in crushing government agencies to shrink the power of government. Instead, they see that there is a fundamental difference between making government more efficient, and aimlessly deregulating industry and cutting spending on social programs.

Americans now see why deficit spending for the sake of economic growth has its consequences. Americans are no longer impressed by the hyper-nationalism that so fundementally defines the Republican party. And most importantly, the silent majority of Republican lore has contracted and withdrawn into deepest reaches of its most ill-willed ideologies. The age of the silent conservative majority is over.

We are the new majority. Get used to it.

Onion on the election hangover, Hillarious:

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Obama's first press conference

I had no intention of obsessing over President-Elect, Barack Obama's first press conference today.

But I watched it.

And I must admit that it was a touch awkward for me - not for anything he did, but for how it made me feel when I thought about all he has to confront. And in his first conference as president-elect, he was thoughtful, charming and knowledgeable as usual. And I was particularly pleased to hear that in his preparation for office, he is thinking most about President Abraham Lincoln.

Great article on how much he is like Lincoln here

But the media seems to have picked up on just one thing: the "mutt like me remark."

For those who didn't see it, he was asked about what type of dog he would be getting for those cute rug-rats of his. He told reporters that due to Malia's allergies he would have to avoid certain types of dogs, which unfortunately would preclude adoption of one from a rescue because "a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me."

I thought the remark was kind of funny, but the media and the blogs have been obsessing about ever sense, with more than a few bloggers saying that it wasn't very "presidential."

I'm so tired of this crap. So tired.

I'm not even sure why I decided to write about it, save to go on record as not being pleased with the scrutiny of meaningless small talk - even after the election.

The "mutt" comment eclipsed all other news for at least an hour or two, and I'm sure it will receive its fair share of coverage tonight.

Who made the Koolaid

I like to say, as an early supporter of Barack Obama for president, that I did not drink the Koolaid, I helped make it.

Newsweek has a great series of articles on the presidential election from journalists that were allowed more access on the condition that they save their stories for after the election.

Here is one on how Obama's run really got started, and who really made the Koolaid.

John Stewart on how California's black voters helped pass gay marriage ban

Why McCain failed

There have been a number of really good articles on what direction Republicans will go as they re-think their message. And the internal struggle seems to be divided between those Republicans who feel their defeat was deserved and those who, still, don't undertand what just happened.

There is nice article from Kathleen Parker over at Slate that I think really sums up why McCain lost, and why the GOP needs to re-think the culture war. Read that article here

The Onion: "Nation Finally shitty enough to make social progress"

You have to love The Onion. Here is a cute satirical article on how voters were so "fucked" that they had to finally ignore their prejudices.

Palin's "real America" chose Obama

In one of my favorite news bits from today, Andrew Sullivan from The Atlantic reported (and TPM repeated) that Guilford County North Carolina - the county where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin famously said she was happy to be in "real America," voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Hold on while I stop laughing...

OK, OK. No, Wait. Hold on. I think I'm crying.

OK, apparently the county chose Obama 59 percent to 41 percent. I guess Palin was right. Now where did I put those tisues.

Ooops: Florida voters accidentally vote down initiative to end discrimination against Asians

Apparently, voters in Florida misunderstood a ballot measure aimed a ending laws that legitimized discrimination against Asians. The New York Times reports that voters mistakenly believed that the measure would have excluded illegal immigrants from owning property. See the story here.

Gun sales jump on news of Obama's victory

No, I'm not kidding. Watch the video below to see why:

We've come so far, yet have so far to go

In the wash of historic optimism that swept the country yesterday, I ran into many a happy soul. Even here in Oklahoma City many people were happy. But then, at the peak of my happiness - ignoring the obvious trouncing of Obama and other Democrats here - I went to a basketball game.

For those not in Oklahoma, the state is shelling out a lot of money for the Thunder in an effort to make Oklahoma City a "big league city."

But we could not be more small.

At the game, My brother and I grabbed our usual seats. Next to me were three area business men still dressed in their work attire. As the game pressed on and the Thunder took a small lead over the championship Celtics, I made a comment about how well they were playing.

The man seated to my right, a middle-aged white man, remarked that the team did not have enough white players and that I should go help them out. I brushed it off.

I suppose that my non-response was enough to make him feel confident in my potential backwardness. He then added: "kinda like the presidency huh?"

I wrongfully resisted the urge for confrontation, choosing instead to make my thoughts clear by turning away and ignoring him. In retrospect, a short concise shaming would have been more appropriate. Perhaps something like "what about me makes you think I share your ignorance" would have worked.

He stayed quiet for a moment, then took a long bathroom break that lasted until halftime.

Later in the game, Mike Turpin, a popular Oklahoma Democrat, popped up on the big screen holding an Obama/Biden bumper sticker. A healthy portion of the crowd cheered, while the rest booed loud enough to provoke an apology from Turpin. It was a more amusing moment than the previous one, but a telling one none-the-less.

This morning, still a bit perturbed by how unlike the rest of the country Oklahoma is, I returned to the office. As I made my morning rounds of the news, I bumped into a nice map at NYTimes.com that showed the presidential election results from the county level. Distracted by all my other work, I had not had a chance to see individual county results in Oklahoma.

As it turns out, Oklahoma was the only state in the entire country where NOT ONE COUNTY voted in favor of Barack Obama - NOT ONE. That means that I live in one of the only major metropolitan area in America - aside from Tulsa - where voters did not favor Obama.

Another of the New York Times maps showed the degree to which individual counties shifted towards the Democrats or Republicans since the last election. Most of the country, as one might imagine, was blue.

But not the southeastern part of Oklahoma. That part of the map glowed red, along with a swath that stretched from there to West Virgina. In Oklahoma, these southeastern counties are the most ardently Democratic. In terms of state House and Senate seats, these counties are reliably Democratic. In McCurtain County - a single county in "little dixie" notable for having the state's highest unemployment rate and one of the highest percentages of registered Democrats (roughly 85 percent), voters chose McCain over Obama 7,744 to 2,792.

You read that right. In a county where the voting population is 85 percent Democratic, 73 percent chose Republican John McCain. 73 percent. And by far smaller margins, they also bucked the rest of the state-wide candidates for office.

So, in a year when the Republican brand could not get any lower, this long swath of life-long southern Democrats actually ignored their own self-interest and voted MORE Republican than in any previous year. MORE Republican. It is not atypical for Oklahoma Democrats to vote Republican in the presidential election, but not to this degree. While Obama made gains in Oklahoma County and Tulsa County - though not enough to win them - he lost ground in the bluest part of the state.

I have not yet looked at the county results for the primaries, but my suspicion is that these counties voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. And in that sense, at least for Oklahoma Democrats like Corporation Commissioner Jim Roth and State Sen. Andrew Rice, Clinton might have been the better choice.

Viewing things from the center of the country, it seems apparent that Obama's victory, while amazing and symbolic of progress for the country, will in some ways be more divisive than any previous administration. Just as the fervor of his supporters has been staggering, the steaming resentment of his detractors is already palpable - enough so that this pragmatic liberal-tarian is fearful about the coming backlash.

For now, the insanity of neo-conservatism is in check. But in its place could rise something far worse. Nationally, Democratic victories in Congress and in the Senate came at the expense of moderate Republicans who were elected in swing districts. While the Democrats have taken the middle ground, they must navigate some treacherous waters because the remaining Republicans, are the hardest Republicans.

The dixie-crats, for now, have left the team. But they have not left the game.

It is incumbent upon all of us to bring them back on board. It is up to us to stroke their better angels and to gently shame their remaining demons. A coalition of anger between extreme conservatives and confused dixie-crats is a dangerous one indeed.

And it is even more important that we be able to distinguish voters who voted AGAINST Obama from those that voted FOR McCain. There were good Republicans and Democrats that voted for McCain based on principles and on policy preferences. They are our allies also. It is among them that we will find those most capable of dousing the flames of hatred.

And it is also up to Obama to show strength and leadership. Now that he has the attention of sceptics and ethnocentric hold-outs, it is up to him to prove why race does not matter. It is up to him to prove that what makes someone American is not their color, religion, or ideology, but their willingness to labor on the country's behalf.

And so I'll end my diatribe with a touch of my own hypocrisy. Don't be like me.

When confronted with under the table, hush-hush, whisper, basketball-bleacher-racism, don't turn the other cheek as I did. Instead, be diligent in your defense of your ideals. Challenge those who promote hate, no matter how small. When someone looks over their shoulder before a race joke, they should be fearful of their peers, not their intended target.

Its hard work. But we should labor on the country's behalf, because it's a labor of love.

A few words about the future

There are many words I could use to describe how I feel today: happy, overjoyed, nervous, or anxious. But I think one word sums it up best:

Proud.

I am proud today because this country that I love chose to make history. I am proud today because once again America has shown to the world that our nation still believes in the power of our founding promise: that all men are created equal. And I am proud today, because for the first time in a long time, we will have a president who understands the challenges that all mankind face; who understands the work ahead; who understands how the world suffers when our country falls short of its highest ideals.

Our role in the world is not a small one. And when we falter, the world falters also. When we starve the better angels of our nature, the world starves also. When we fail to reach those highest ideals of human freedom and intrinsic human value, then the world fails also. When we neglect the poor and the needy, we neglect the very thing that makes us human, and the world does also.

And when we respond to hate with hate and cast out those who might otherwise heed our call of freedom, and of Democracy, the world hates also.

The world is not without evil. It is not without its share of anger and violence directed at the innocent, at home or abroad. But the greatest danger lies within. When we let fear drive us to insanity; when we let fear drive us apart; when we let fear drive us to violence, the world does also. We cannot allow the blind acts of violent men to evoke responses that are equally blind.

Terror thrives on fear and violence. Terror thrives on confusion and disunity.

And so, when we succumb to our fear, we succumb to terror. When we succumb to violence, we help it thrive. And when we are lost and divided, the world is also, and it is terror that wins.

And most importantly, terror thrives on poverty and strife. It seeks to blame the condition of poor and huddled masses on the actions of those who seem to be turning a blind eye. And so, when we neglect those who need us most, the world does also – and it is terror that wins.

We cannot stop every violent plot. And sometimes, in our efforts to do so, we do more damage to ourselves than the enemy could ever do on their own. They can damage property. They can cause sorrow and the loss of life. But unless we succumb to the poisons they are pushing, they cannot take our way of life.

They cannot take our freedom, less we hand it to them. They cannot diminish our role in the world, less we assume another. They cannot make us a lesser country, less we destroy it ourselves.

And 76 days from today, we will have a new president, Barack Obama, who understands these things.

And so it is with great pride, hope and optimism that we should gather strength for the road ahead. For electing one man is not enough. It will take a great deal of sacrifice, courage, bravery, diligence and fearlessness from all of us to fight poverty and achieve lasting peace.

And this brings us to the next great word; a word that describes not the past or the present, but the future:

Determination.

First polls close

I can hardly contain myself while waiting for the results of the Indiana election to come in. Again, if Obama wins Indiana, it could be a short night. ARGH! This election should have happened months ago...

Update: 5:47 PM Central:
Initial results from Indiana look good. The race appeares to be about even with the first few counties reporting. The urban centers have yet to begin reporting. There is a long way to go, but we have a pulse...

Update: 6:07 PM Central: Indiana still close too call, which is good. It suggests that polling data has been accurate, but we will see. Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan just declared this a new liberal era. Premature much...

Update: 6:29 PM Central: McCain appears to be performing well in rural Virginia as expected. So far his is up, but the urban and suburban areas close to D.C. have yet to report. Initial North Carolina numbers suggest a close race there too. There is just not enough information to gleen any real insights. So, why keep making all of these updates? Notes for later, thats why. And on that note, the networks have called Vermont for Obama and Kentucky for McCain - so surprise...

Update: 7:05 PM Central: Pennsylvania - along with a slew of other typical blue states - called for Obama by MSNBC. All eyes remain on Virginia at this point. This will likely be my last post for a while, as I have to run off to cover some state races :(.....

Update: 8:42 PM Central: Say hello to President Barack Obama. With projections of victories in Ohio and New Mexico to add to his other solid blue states, the election is essentially over. With all his states plus CA, OR, WA, Obama has 277. That is without Florida, Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Arizona (which is close) Indiana and some other posibilities. We could be looking at a landslide...

Why is Fox sowing seeds of doubt about election outcome?

I was on my way back to the office when I turned on the radio to the AM-servative end of the dial, when I caught Sean Hannity from Fox News talking about Black Panthers intimidating voters at a polling place. Hannity aired an audio clip in which another voter confronted the men, before running through a list of supposed voter fraud cases.

When I pulled into the office, I hoped onto the computer and logged onto Fox to find the video. Turns out that one man, dressed in Black Panther style clothing, was indeed asked to leave, while the other (whom Rick Leventhal proceeded to harass) was a certified poll watcher. So, the real story, is that Fox News is harassing certified poll watchers. A white polling official was standing with the black gentleman, and apparently had the police come to ask him leave.

Leventhal also reported that there were no reports that any voters were turned away from the polling place, or, that any were intimidated enough to leave.

The important thing to take from all of this is that, while Republicans have already filed several suits, (including one that they had to back off of that challenged the registration of thousands of college voters in Iowa), FoxNews doesn't cover those stories of voter suppression. Fox, instead, covers reports of Black people being intimidating, and one interview with what sounded like a drunk man saying that he would like to vote more than once.

Republicans, and Fox in particular, are trying to sow seeds of doubt about what seems like an inevitable Obama victory, so that they can challenge the results, drag him into court, and never have to acknowledge the victory.

Well, I have news for the Republicans out there who think they can drum up enough discontent about the election to reverse the results: It isn't going to happen.

My local coffee shop predicts Obama landslide

The coffee shop across from my office was in the process of counting up votes from the last three weeks, and the unofficial results show a landslide for Obama!!!

Why Virginia is the most important state to watch...

Chuck Todd is not my favorite data junkie, but he is right when he says that we will know a great deal when the results come in from Virginia. As he said, it will be one of the very first states to report and it will serve as the first indicator of how accurate the pre-election polls have been. If Virginia pops for Obama, it will be a good sign. If, however, Virgina goes for McCain, it could be a very long night. What Todd missed, was that polls in Florida and Indiana will also close at 7:00 PM. If Obama picks up Indiana, expect a blowout victory for Obama. If Obama wins all three, it will be a near certainty that he wins the election, and by a wide margin.

Also, Todd discusses another possibility that I have suggested, that McCain could win the election, but lose the popular vote - scary.

This is what worries me:

The video below shows what Democrats have been worried about in places like Florida, Colorado, Ohio and Virgina, where Republicans have gone to great lengths to challenge new voter registrations. States are aloud to purge voters in some instances, but many have abused social security match methods that have proven unreliable. If the election is close, we could have a real mess on our hands.