What we need most of all is to give Obama and his administration some breathing space, practically, temporally, and politically. Because the task at hand is so enormous and we've been waiting so long. While it's valid to ask, as Nader has, what kind of president he'll be (but not the way he asked it), valid to want real and immediate change, valid to want to reverse the breathtaking range of misguided policies from the past eight years, it's simply not realistic to expect all that NOW. Clinton's presidency got ruined by overreaching in the first year -- arguably it got ruined by many other things, too -- is that what we want?

Give the man and his moment some space.

And forget about prosecuting Cheney et al. for war crimes. Ain't gonna happen. Much as some of us believe that it's more than justified, there's no surer way to blow the slim grace period Obama's sure to have than to appear to seek revenge on the previous administration, however keen that desire might be.

And thank Tina Fey for the outcome of this election.

I think we have to thank the massive financial crisis we are in. Obama was neck and neck with McCain and the newly intro'd Palin, and then the crisis made America realize some things are more important than skin color, Bill Ayers, cute moose hunters, and such. We needed a calm, intelligent, globally approved younger man not a crotchety (honorable, patriotic), erratic old guy in charge.

I wonder if they're going to wear Obama pajamas in the White House. www.ojamas.us.

And Katie Couric

forget about prosecuting Cheney et al. for war crimes. Ain't gonna happen.

If Obama's presidency is spectacularly successful and popular after 2-3 years in office, and if there's a groundswell of outcry from the international community that is sustained and amplified here in the USA, it could still happen. But not before then.

Even so, George W. Bush might be sufficiently rattled about the prospect that he grants a host of "pre-emptive pardons" before he leaves office in January.

Pardons from Bush would be meaningless. This is international law we're talking about, not to mention mass-murder.

Since Salon has decided to inflict the opinion of Dan Savage on it's readers allow me to furnish a couple excerpts from his argument for the invasion of Iraq. This guy, like Andrew Sullivan, can be a war monger with zero expectation of ever having to put his ass on the line. And now, like Andrew Sullivan, Mr. Savage has said "oops-I made a mistake supporting the Iraq war." But oops doesn't do squat for all the people maimed and killed in their glorious war.

Excerpts from "Say yes to war on Iraq" by Dan Savage Oct. 2002

"War may be bad for children and other living things, but there are times when peace is worse for children and other living things, and this is one of those times."

"In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize... or we're going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves."

You can read the entire chickenhawk column here:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=12237

Very nice set of comments in this collection on "The new era of Obama." Particularly the reference to public service from the Park Slope (I have fond memories of voting (safely at the time) for Ralph Nader at the elementary school there in a line standing opposite a very happy, also-voting Chuck Schumer) musician ... which made me realize that one of my fervent hopes is that the Obama Administration dispenses with the line-your-pockets cronyism of the Reagan/Bush/Bush era. And the astute comments regarding Obama-the-constitutional-scholar made me wish people-in-the-know would start drawing attention to the critical importance of election reform and not let it go or we may not be seeing a second term for President Obama.

And I have been thinking the same thing about the importance of Michelle Obama as First Lady as Sherman Alexie put it so nicely. But, Sherman, c'mon ... with enough peroxide, you too could go blonde like those, including Cindy, at McCain's concession party ... but it's time, isn't it after all, to leave (even in jest) the phenotype character stereotyping behind? Seriously, Sherman, I'm sure you know better.

Dan Savage/Hanna Rosin in 2012.

I see the GOP trolls are out insisting that Obama "only" won due to the financial crisis. However, the fact of the matter is:

1) The financial crisis was a direct result of GOP-led deregulation. It was not some freak act of God.

2) In fact, McCain only led momentarily after the RNC when he received an expected convention bump (though regained the lead soon after). While it is true that the national margin was slightly tighter (we may have been looking at a 2-3 point Obama victory instead), the fact of the matter is that, even then, Obama had an almost-certain path to victory through Iowa, New Mexico, and Colorado. Certainly, the financial crisis helped deliver states like Florida and North Carolina, but they were not necessary, just as a McCain victory was always unlikely.

Here's hoping Beyoncé, Tim McGraw, Kanye West, Death Cab for Cutie, the Dixie Chicks and the Harlem Boys Choir perform "People Get Ready."

As if I hadn't cried enough the past two days; this got right to the f@ckin' heart of it. Thank you.

(and as a Spokane native [with an 'e'--I know, not the same] much respect to you on your continued success. And, please say "hey" to Jim Boyd for me. We played together at SFCC back in the day)

All love,

Brian Harris