tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32298156.post2259460723937911523..comments2008-11-09T23:11:49.826-08:00Sharktacoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14211582724058718297noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32298156.post-24939160766198246592008-11-09T23:11:00.000-08:002008-11-09T23:11:00.000-08:00I suppose when Lincoln (who was a Republican I note) was elected, I'm sure there were people who had voted for Douglas who were also saying what you are here - that I'm just happy because "my team won". History would show however that Lincoln was not just any old president. <BR/><BR/>What I am saying is that I think that we have with Obama someone as significant as a Kennedy or a Lincoln in our time. A person history will remember as transcending a party. I am saying that there has not been a moment for decades that is as significant as this one is. <BR/><BR/>I guess only history will be able to tell.Derekhttp://sharktacos.com/God/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32298156.post-20045861445058886042008-11-09T22:26:00.000-08:002008-11-09T22:26:00.000-08:00It doesn't bother me that you are happy Obama won - politics is only polarizing if we allow it to be so. I even hope that you are right... But I think it bears saying that my wife would probably say similarly rhapsodic things about Sarah Palin had the McCain ticket won. <BR/><BR/>To move from the (allegedly) significant to the trivial - think about sports. It always feels significant when your team wins - this is the start of sustained success, proof of virtue and talent, and true evidence of the greatness of your athletic heroes. (Losing, on the other hand, is usually due to "bad luck" or some similarly inscrutable cause).<BR/><BR/>You aren't alone in perceiving transcendence and significance in the moment - the half of the country that voted for Obama agrees with you... The other half is busy cursing its "bad luck" and planning for the next election.metapundit.nethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11729350517271714995noreply@blogger.com