Repetitive Motions

Moose spent part of Sunday afternoon raking leaves. She thought fresh air and some light physical activity might help her work through the complex mix of thoughts and feelings she’s had the past few days as she pondered the election results. For an hour or so, she moved steadily around the yard, clearing off decks and porches, shaking the crisp leaves out of bushes and shrubs, sweeping off the walks. Moose is not a gardener, but she enjoys the occasional bout of yard work, deriving from it the dual satisfactions of playing outside and tidying up. And yet, of course, in early November the project of raking leaves is a Sisyphean task. Every time she paused in her work, Moose noticed that the huge pin oak in the front yard was creating more work for her to do. As new leaves dropped silently to the ground, she put the rake away and urged Goose to join her in a walk. She still hadn’t figured out how to make sense of the triumph of the nation electing its first African-American president on the same day that voters in four states approved measures prohibiting same-sex marriage (in Arizona, California, and Florida) and adoption by gay couples (in Arkansas).

Tuesday’s results are only ironic, Moose realizes, if one imagines that all of the voters who support one candidate or another define equality or justice in precisely the same way and vote in accordance with that definition all the way down their ballots. That sense of irony is in play in the commentary Jon Stewart offered on Thursday night’s Daily Show, in response to a report that 69% of African-American voters had voted for California’s ban on same-sex marriage, suggesting that the large turnout of such voters in support of Barack Obama was responsible for the passage of Prop 8. “Ah,” Stewart quipped, “it appears the oppressee has become the oppressor! What’d that take, about 24 hours? ‘Free at last, free at last – Whoa, whoa, where are you two going?’” Moose has a hunch that joke probably didn’t go over well in communities of color, and it might have helped fuel anger within the white gay community toward African-American voters. Such anger has been evident in protests that have occurred throughout California since the election and in flame wars that have erupted in blog comments when the issue has come up.

Part of the challenge in making sense of Tuesday is to let go of a stubborn American belief in “the march of progress” – i.e., the idea that the nation is moving forward in linear fashion toward the perfection of itself, the fulfillment of its ideals. Such a framework narrates the history of civil rights in the United States as a steady movement from formal equality, first for African Americans (secured legislatively and judicially through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court decision overturning laws against interracial marriage), then for women (Roe v. Wade, Title IX) and, inevitably, for LGBTs (who now seek the freedom to marry and protection from discrimination in employment and accommodations). Within such a framework, it is impossible to imagine that a right achieved, as same-sex marriage was in California, might be taken away. It is also impossible to see that, far from being linear or inevitable, the movement of progress is ragged and uneven, its outcome never assured in advance. Finally, in its crude reduction of human beings to groups defined by only one characteristic (race, gender, or sexual orientation), the march of progress narrative does a bad job of accounting for how all three of those (and other) vectors of difference play out within individual lives and of how they operate simultaneously within the social field. To suggest that equality for LGBT people follows inevitably from the equality achieved first by blacks and then by women is to miss the ways in which race and sex/gender have produced one another as categories and been entangled with one another in law, in history, and in cultural logic.

At this point in her raking and walking, Moose realized she was ruminating not just on Obama and Prop 8 but on the much larger question of how race, sex, and gender had played out through the whole course of the 2008 campaign, from the Clinton cleavage kerfuffle to the Palin wardrobe malfunction, with a brief fainting fit over the New Yorker cover of the Obamas in between. She also realized she was having an internal colloquy with a friend who has written extensively on how the categories of race and sexual identity were imagined in relation to one another in the US throughout the civil rights era. What she wanted was an intersectional analysis of the presidential race that would more adequately account for, among other things, how Obama’s privileges in relation to gender and sexual identity might have overcome the disadvantages of race. She wanted a way of looking at the whole madcap adventure that would make its apparently contradictory outcomes explicable. She wanted not a blog post but a scholarly disquisition on the tangled roots and insidious branches of the American race/sex/gender system. I told her to brush the leaves off her shirt and scale back her ambitions. This is a humble dog blog, I reminded her, not a peer-reviewed journal, thank dog.

Her expectations adjusted, Moose went back to the internets and tuned into the lacerating postmortems that were taking place online. She read widely in Pam’s House Blend, which for most of the weekend was a forum for Prop 8 reports and assessments. She watched Rachel Maddow’s interview with Princeton poli sci prof Melissa Harris-Lacewell, who chastised No on 8 organizers for failing to do “due diligence” in communities of color by not going into the churches and arguing for the parallels between interracial and same-sex marriage. Butch PhD, as Maddow is fondly known around here, responds with a bit of concern about setting up equivalences between different oppressed groups, but Harris-Lacewell sticks to her guns, insisting that the separate-but-equal argument will resonate in the black community. (Moose has heard field organizers for Maryland’s state LGBT civil rights organization arguing exactly the opposite view on this point. See also next paragraph.) Richard Kim in The Nation concurs with Harris-Lacewell’s criticism of Prop 8’s opponents for being out-organized and out-maneuvered by the well-funded supporters of the marriage ban. He spoke to queer of color activists who said that outreach to the African-American community began very late in the game and to other critics who complained about slow efforts to raise money and a weak advertising campaign that seemed diffident about emphasizing LGBT couples and the impact a defeat would have on them.

Some critics said the failure of Prop 8’s opponents was about more than tactics or money. Jasmyne A. Cannick, an LA-based black lesbian journalist/activist, offers a broader, withering critique of the crusade for marriage as reflecting the values and priorities of a white gay community uninterested in deeper conditions of inequality affecting communities of color and ignorant of the history the black civil rights movement, particularly the role of the church in promoting social justice. “To many blacks,” Cannick writes, “civil rights are grounded in Christianity – not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community.” The Angry Black Woman, though more sympathetic to the cause of same-sex marriage than Cannick is, suggests that framing same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue comparable to interracial marriage misses the crucial point that interracial marriage was a priority for predominantly white organizations such as the ACLU, not of black civil rights organizations focused more on the right to vote, work, and have access to a decent education. She notes that for older African Americans the effort to establish a parallel between same-sex marriage and black civil rights struggles feels like an arrogant attempt to “ride on the coattails” of those earlier struggles. Moose really appreciated TABW’s lengthy post, which acknowledges homophobia within African-American communities, expresses compassion about the anger being experienced in LGBT communities over the outcome on Prop 8, and nicely dissects some of the exit poll data to show that it is unfair to try to blame African-American voters for that outcome.

Sometimes Moose wonders if it isn’t time to shift the ground of the battle to something other than marriage, even if California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is now urging supporters not to give up. She has her own anger toward LGBT political organizations that seem adept at racking up celebrity endorsements yet spectacularly bad at mustering votes. She wasn’t the least bit interested in marriage until majorities of her fellow citizens started telling her she and Goose were some big yucky threat to the sanctity of it. Child molesters, rapists, and adulterers were welcome to the party, but a couple of cranky old dykes with a nice house and a cute dog – Wow, that is some scary stuff! Still, if the issue is gaining legal protections and economic benefits for queer households, does it matter if we call it “marriage”? If the straight majority is dumb enough to grant us all those things – and I do mean all, including the full panoply of federal benefits extended to married couples -- as long as we call it anything other than “marriage,” then maybe we should take the deal and throw ourselves a victory party. I know, I know, separate is still unequal, but, but, but – Aren’t we tired of going through these motions over and over again and never really getting anywhere? Aren’t we sick to death of seeing the collective energies and resources of our small community sapped by the ridiculous effort to prove we deserve access to an institution that has been oppressing women and stymieing the relational imagination for centuries?

For all we don’t know or can’t make up our minds about, there is one thing about the marriage mess we know for sure: It is useless for communities of sexual and racial minorities to waste time blaming one another for the outcome of these votes. The real enemies are the groups and individuals that have funded and organized ballot initiatives all over the country aimed at subjecting the rights of a small and in some ways stigmatized minority group to popular votes. In the case of Prop 8, People for the American Way’s Foundation President Kathryn Kolbert helpfully reminds us of who would be the appropriate targets for our righteous anger:

Conservative evangelical leaders who are unremittingly hostile to the rights of gay people and who put Prop. 8 on the ballot and bombarded pastors, churchgoers, and the public with lies about gay people wanting to destroy their religious liberty and come for their children — even suggesting that Christians would be thrown in jail if Prop 8 passed.

Mormon Church leaders who turned Prop. 8 into a national religious crusade against gay couples, badgered Mormons nationwide to give heavily to the campaign, and recruited thousands of footsoldiers for door-to-door canvassing (special kudos to the courageous Mormons who challenged the Church leadership)

Conservative Catholic leaders who betrayed Catholic teaching about human dignity by enthusiastically joining forces with campaign organizers who portrayed supporters of gay equality as evil and satanic

“Yes on Prop 8” leaders whose view of the campaign as a battle between good and evil led to an “ends justifies the means” campaign that included grossly distorted ads, mailings, and robocalls directed at African Americans and falsely portrayed Barack Obama as a Prop 8 supporter.

The good news is that efforts are taking shape to take the fight to the organizations and institutions that brought us Prop 8. Roxie’s World urges its legions of loyal fans to stay mad, get engaged – and fight the real enemies. Be safe, beloveds, be strong, and bear in mind that an army of extremely clever fashionably dressed people cannot be defeated. Peace out.

(Photo Credit: Rick Loomis, Los Angeles Times; Times caption: Police try to break up a confrontation between pro- and anti-Proposition 8 sides in front of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that drew hundreds of people, 11/6/08.)

Transitional Moves

How's America handling the dawning of the Age of Obama? Well, as with all epic transformations in the zeitgeist, there have been a few glitches, a couple of hiccups, a few signs that not everyone has read the unity memos. Cases in point:

1. Barney Bites Reporter

In a move clearly orchestrated by Dick Cheney to let evildoers know that the White House is still under the control of a bunch of bitter old meanies, First Dog Barney was dispatched yesterday to bite a reporter. Roxie's World officially protests this cruel and cynical exploitation of a sweet little terrier who clearly just wanted to be left alone to tinkle. Watch the vid and judge for yourself:



2. McCain Aides Bite Sarah Palin

And CNN's Alma Dale Brown righteously rips them for it. You go, girl -- And you'll have to go over to CNN to watch the vid, because for some reason we can't get it to embed. Sorry. We'll update later if we can find it out on the YouTubes, but click on over. It's a fine piece of high dudgeon in which the Steel Magnolia of American journalism reminds the dagger-wielding McCainiacs that the woman they are now calling the Wasilla Hillbilly was put on the ticket to throw a little populist red meat to the Republican base. Point taken, Alma Dale!

3. Awkward Encounters Across the Color Line in Post-Racial US of A:

Goose was dozing on a Metro train last night, coming home late from a dinner downtown. As the train pulled out of Union Station, she was jolted awake by a heated conversation two black guys were having about the president-elect. She and the other (mostly white) passengers had no choice but to listen in on the discussion, which went something like this:

Black Guy #1: That man has never been an N-word -- not one day in his life!

Black Guy #2: How can you say that? He certainly has been an N-word!

Black Guy #1: No, not ever! You've been an N-word, bro, I've been an N-word, but he has never been an N-word, and he ain't gonna do nothin' for us! He is whitey's choice for this country, not mine!

(Goose shifts in her seat, accidentally makes eye contact with a white guy seated across the train from her. His glance says, "Goodness, this is awkward, isn't it?")

Black Guy #2: You crazy. Surely you voted for him!

Black Guy #1: Did not, bro. I live in the District of Columbia. Don't make no difference who I vote for.

(The guys argued all the way to Ft. Totten and then got off the train together, taking their argument with them into the muggy November night. Goose closed her eyes and reflected on how much the new America looked and sounded like the old one. Plus ça change, she would have thought, if she were inclined to think in French, which, hélas, she is not.)

4. Judith Butler Kills Your Buzz

Or at least we think it's Judith Butler. We picked this up off Angry White Kid, by way of a Facebook pal. Its provenance isn't entirely clear, but even if it isn't Judith Butler, we think it's so damn smart about "the heightened modes of identification" and the dangers of appeals to unity that have fueled Obamania that we think it's worth passing along. We'll continue to try to confirm the source, but in the meantime here's a big cut-and-paste job for you to contemplate over your Wheaties on this first Friday after the election that redeemed our nation from its sordid racial history -- even as it decided that, on second thought, queers really should be relegated to the status of second-class citizens. If we were a philosopher rather than a humble dog, we would have come up with the term "uncritical exuberance" months ago, but we're glad Butler came up with it for us. Take it away, Judy. (The piece is dated Wednesday, Nov. 5, by the way. Damn, she's not just smarter than we are -- She's faster than we are!)

Uncritical Exuberance?
Judith Butler

Very few of us are immune to the exhilaration of this time. My friends on the left write to me that they feel something akin to "redemption" or that "the country has been returned to us" or that "we finally have one of us in the White House." Of course, like them, I discover myself feeling overwhelmed with disbelief and excitement throughout the day, since the thought of having the regime of George W. Bush over and gone is an enormous relief. And the thought of Obama, a thoughtful and progressive black candidate, shifts the historical ground, and we feel that cataclysm as it produces a new terrain. But let us try to think carefully about the shifted terrain, although we cannot fully know its contours at this time. The election of Barack Obama is historically significant in ways that are yet to be gauged, but it is not, and cannot be, a redemption, and if we subscribe to the heightened modes of identification that he proposes ("we are all united") or that we propose ("he is one of us"), we risk believing that this political moment can overcome the antagonisms that are constitutive of political life, especially political life in these times. There have always been good reasons not to embrace "national unity" as an ideal, and to nurse suspicions toward absolute and seamless identification with any political leader. After all, fascism relied in part on that seamless identification with the leader, and Republicans engage this same effort to organize political affect when, for instance, Elizabeth Dole looks out on her audience and says, "I love each and every one of you."

It becomes all the more important to think about the politics of exuberant identification with the election of Obama when we consider that support for Obama has coincided with support for conservative causes. In a way, this accounts for his "cross-over" success. In California, he won by 60% of the vote, and yet some significant portion of those who voted for him also voted against the legalization of gay marriage (52%). How do we understand this apparent disjunction? First, let us remember that Obama has not explicitly supported gay marriage rights. Further, as Wendy Brown has argued, the Republicans have found that the electorate is not as galvanized by "moral" issues as they were in recent elections; the reasons given for why people voted for Obama seem to be predominantly economic, and their reasoning seems more fully structured by neo-liberal rationality than by religious concerns. This is clearly one reason why Palin's assigned public function to galvanize the majority of the electorate on moral issues finally failed. But if "moral" issues such as gun control, abortion rights and gay rights were not as determinative as they once were, perhaps that is because they are thriving in a separate compartment of the political mind. In other words, we are faced with new configurations of political belief that make it possible to hold apparently discrepant views at the same time: someone can, for instance, disagree with Obama on certain issues, but still have voted for him. This became most salient in the emergence of the counter Bradley-effect, when voters could and did explicitly own up to their own racism, but said they would vote for Obama anyway. Anecdotes from the field include claims like the following: "I know that Obama is a Muslim and a Terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway; he is probably better for the economy." Such voters got to keep their racism and vote for Obama, sheltering their split beliefs without having to resolve them.

Along with strong economic motivations, less empirically discernible factors have come into play in these election results. We cannot underestimate the force of dis-identification in this election, a sense of revulsion that George W. has "represented" the United States to the rest of the world, a sense of shame about our practices of torture and illegal detention, a sense of disgust that we have waged war on false grounds and propagated racist views of Islam, a sense of alarm and horror that the extremes of economic deregulation have led to a global economic crisis. Is it despite his race, or because of his race, that Obama finally emerged as a preferred representative of the nation? Fulfilling that representative-function, he is at once black and not-black (some say "not black enough" and others say "too black"), and, as a result, he can appeal to voters who not only have no way of resolving their ambivalence on this issue, but do not want one. The public figure who allows the populace to sustain and mask its ambivalence nevertheless appears as a figure of "unity": this is surely an ideological function. Such moments are intensely imaginary, but not for that reason without their political force.

As the election approached, there has been an increased focus on the person of Obama: his gravity, his deliberateness, his ability not to lose his temper, his way of modeling a certain evenness in the face of hurtful attacks and vile political rhetoric, his promise to reinstate a version of the nation that will overcome its current shame. Of course, the promise is alluring, but what if the embrace of Obama leads to the belief that we might overcome all dissonance, that unity is actually possible? What is the chance that we may end up suffering a certain inevitable disappointment when this charismatic leader displays his fallibility, his willingness to compromise, even to sell out minorities? He has, in fact, already done this in certain ways, but many of us "set aside" our concerns in order to enjoy the extreme un-ambivalence of this moment, risking an uncritical exuberance even when we know better. Obama is, after all, hardly a leftist, regardless of the attributions of "socialism" proffered by his conservative opponents. In what ways will his actions be constrained by party politics, economic interests, and state power; in what ways have they been compromised already? If we seek through this presidency to overcome a sense of dissonance, then we will have jettisoned critical politics in favor of an exuberance whose phantasmatic dimensions will prove consequential. Maybe we cannot avoid this phantasmatic moment, but let us be mindful about how temporary it is. If there are avowed racists who have said, "I know that he is a Muslim and a terrorist, but I will vote for him anyway," there are surely also people on the left who say, "I know that he has sold out gay rights and Palestine, but he is still our redemption." I know very well, but still: this is the classic formulation of disavowal. Through what means do we sustain and mask conflicting beliefs of this sort? And at what political cost?

There is no doubt that Obama's success will have significant effects on the economic course of the nation, and it seems reasonable to assume that we will see a new rationale for economic regulation and for an approach to economics that resembles social democratic forms in Europe; in foreign affairs, we will doubtless see a renewal of multi-lateral relations, the reversal of a fatal trend of destroying multilateral accords that the Bush administration has undertaken. And there will doubtless also be a more generally liberal trend on social issues, though it is important to remember that Obama has not supported universal health care, and has failed to explicitly support gay marriage rights. And there is not yet much reason to hope that he will formulate a just policy for the United States in the Middle East, even though it is a relief, to be sure, that he knows Rashid Khalidi.

The indisputable significance of his election has everything to do with overcoming the limits implicitly imposed on African-American achievement; it has and will inspire and overwhelm young African-Americans; it will, at the same time, precipitate a change in the self-definition of the United States. If the election of Obama signals a willingness on the part of the majority of voters to be "represented" by this man, then it follows that who "we" are is constituted anew: we are a nation of many races, of mixed races; and he offers us the occasion to recognize who we have become and what we have yet to be, and in this way a certain split between the representative function of the presidency and the populace represented appears to be overcome. That is an exhilarating moment, to be sure. But can it last, and should it?

To what consequences will this nearly messianic expectation invested in this man lead? In order for this presidency to be successful, it will have to lead to some disappointment, and to survive disappointment: the man will become human, will prove less powerful than we might wish, and politics will cease to be a celebration without ambivalence and caution; indeed, politics will prove to be less of a messianic experience than a venue for robust debate, public criticism, and necessary antagonism. The election of Obama means that the terrain for debate and struggle has shifted, and it is a better terrain, to be sure. But it is not the end of struggle, and we would be very unwise to regard it that way, even provisionally. We will doubtless agree and disagree with various actions he takes and fails to take. But if the initial expectation is that he is and will be "redemption" itself, then we will punish him mercilessly when he fails us (or we will find ways to deny or suppress that disappointment in order to keep alive the experience of unity and unambivalent love).

If a consequential and dramatic disappointment is to be averted, he will have to act quickly and well. Perhaps the only way to avert a "crash" – a disappointment of serious proportions that would turn political will against him – will be to take decisive actions within the first two months of his presidency. The first would be to close Guantanamo and find ways to transfer the cases of detainees to legitimate courts; the second would be to forge a plan for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and to begin to implement that plan. The third would be to retract his bellicose remarks about escalating war in Afghanistan and pursue diplomatic, multilateral solutions in that arena. If he fails to take these steps, his support on the left will clearly deteriorate, and we will see the reconfiguration of the split between liberal hawks and the anti-war left. If he appoints the likes of Lawrence Summers to key cabinet positions, or continues the failed economic polices of Clinton and Bush, then at some point the messiah will be scorned as a false prophet. In the place of an impossible promise, we need a series of concrete actions that can begin to reverse the terrible abrogation of justice committed by the Bush regime; anything less will lead to a dramatic and consequential disillusionment. The question is what measure of dis-illusion is necessary in order to retrieve a critical politics, and what more dramatic form of dis-illusionment will return us to the intense political cynicism of the last years. Some relief from illusion is necessary, so that we might remember that politics is less about the person and the impossible and beautiful promise he represents than it is about the concrete changes in policy that might begin, over time, and with difficulty, bring about conditions of greater justice.

About Last Night

There is bone-crushing weariness in Roxie's World this evening, my dear, content-craving readers. (You do remember that my typist has a morning class on Wednesdays this semester, don't you? And you realize she was up awfully late last night following returns and helping clean up after the election watch at Ishmael's, the seedy yet cozy bar around the corner from the global headquarters of RW Enterprises, LLC? And fielding phone calls from drunken friends hanging on the White House fence at 1:45 a.m.?) We've barely begun to wrap our paws around the many stories of yesterday's elections -- the resounding triumphs of Barack Obama and the Democratic party, the sea-to-shining-sea repudiation of Shrub and the once respectable party he and his cronies destroyed, the heart-breaking defeats suffered in the battle for LGBT civil rights. We're not ready yet to try to make sense of it all for you, the members of our far-flung, motley, beloved pack of fighters for justice.

If we made a joke, it would fall flat. (What's the difference between a pregnant pig and a California queer? The pregnant pig has rights recognized in the state's constitution.) If we tried to get analytical, it would sound (and be) shallow. (Beware the rush to declare Obama the poster boy for post-ness [post-race, post-civil rights, post-partisan . . . .]! We still have a ton of work to do!) (If you want some good analysis along these lines, see Tenured Radical's post today, the message of which is, Beware the temptations of instant history.) Heck, kids, we're even too tired to weigh in on the question upon which this blog is most equipped to advise America's new president-elect and first-family-in-waiting: the burning issue of what kind of PUPPY the Obama girls will get to take to the White House with them. (Dad promised them one early in his victory speech last night, and I'm figuring that's the kind of promise even the slickest politician wouldn't dare break.) Fortunately, the New York Times has already pounced on this story and has some good advice for Malia and Sasha as well as some adorable photos. Roxie's World has only one word to offer on this subject, but we think our readers, with the possible exception of Dudley the Beagle, will agree it ought to settle the matter: TERRIER.

So we're tired and cranky and not feeling the same kind of political exaltation that many of you are probably feeling right now. We were moved and encouraged by much of what transpired yesterday. We were as amazed as Shakesville's Melissa McEwan was that Moose's home state of Indiana actually did turn an extremely light shade of blue in the middle of the night last night, which is why we've borrowed Liss's cleverly doctored map of the election results to send a friendly little shout out to all the folks back home:

We are thrilled to imagine what it will be like to see the president-elect and his family settled into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We have long felt that what this country really needed was a 6-foot tall black woman in peak physical condition running the show in the White House. This Queen of America is going to take Washington City by storm, of that we are certain. And the English profs 'round here are getting an extra-special kick out of knowing that the odious culture warrior Lynne Cheney is about to be replaced as Second Lady by Jill Biden, a community college English professor. We haven't fact-checked this one yet, but we're willing to bet Biden will be the first member of any sitting presidential or vice-presidential family to have a listing on ratemyprofessors.com.

Elections matter, or we wouldn't have been writing and thinking as obsessively about this one as we have been for the past year and a half. Historical firsts matter, because they do signal deep transformations in a nation's politics and in what we might call, for lack of a better term, its soul. But yesterday's defeats are, in their way, as important as yesterday's triumphs. Even as we savor the victories, we must unflinchingly assess the defeats and prepare ourselves for the difficult work that lies ahead. (Pam Spaulding gets that analysis started here.)

Which is why, my friends, the denizens of Roxie's World are headed off to bed. Congratulations, dear ones, and sweet dreams.

(Photo Credit: Phil Velasquez, Chicago Tribune; Tribune caption: President-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle take the stage with their daughters, Sasha, 7, and Malia, 10, in Grant Park, Chicago, 11/4/08.)

Voters Drink Free

Update, 11:02 p.m.:


(Photo Credit: We'll never tell, though DC-area readers may recognize it. Hint: Close to White House, excellent crab dip, and the plot for Iran-Contra was hatched there. It looks a little snazzier than the "seedy yet cozy" image we've been conjuring up for Ishmael's, the bar around the corner from the global headquarters of RW Enterprises, LLC, but what the hey -- We're feeling festive!))

Open Bar! Open Thread!

Whatcha drinkin'?

Whatcha thinkin'?

Who ya watchin'?

We'll try to update, but Moose and Mark Twain are already hunkered down at the bar, fighting over fried mozzarella sticks and the sociopolitical implications of America having a biracial president. Goose has been helping out in the kitchen at Ishmael's this afternoon, preparing hearty casseroles to keep the nervous crowd of profs, students, and neighbors fat and happy.

Remember: Moose says we'll know who the winner is by 7:51. Goose says it'll be 8:13. Eitan is betting on 8:14. What do you predict?

Love you, fellow citizens and loyal fans. Let us know what's on your minds -- and hearts -- tonight.

Update, 7:03 p.m.: McCain leads 8-3 in electoral votes based on ABC projections of his winning Kentucky and Obama taking Vermont. "Oh, no!" Goose shrieks. "Get the razor blades!" Our tongue-in-cheek drama queen. George Stephanopoulos' tie is crooked! We may need to change the channel. . . .What is Rachel wearing?

Update, 9:07 p.m.: The CNN bloviators are having a somber discussion about race in America. Friends, the fat lady is about to sing.

Allons Enfants!

The moms were in line at 6:50 this morning with a couple hundred other passionate citizens of the People's Republic of Takoma Park. They were back home by 8 a.m., proudly sporting their "I Voted" stickers. Now it's off for a busy day at Queer the Turtle U before the big election watch this evening at Ishmael's, the seedy yet cozy bar around the corner from the global headquarters of RW Enterprises, LLC. See you all later, kids! Voters drink free.

Meantime, tell us about your voting experiences. Are you a happy citizen today? We hope so!

Endorsements & Predictions

Ceci n'est pas une endorsement -- But it might not be a bad idea:

(Photo Credit: Linda Davidson, Washington Post; Brenda Waters at an Obama rally in Virginia Beach, VA, 10/30/08.)

We've spent the weekend gazing into our crystal water bowls here in Roxie's World, kids, and here's what our crack team of canine/queer political analysts, prognosticators, and make-up artists (as in, "When we have no idea what to think, we just make something up") is prepared to say about Tuesday's general election. We expect our smarty-pants legions of loyal fans to offer up a few predictions of their own in comments, so put on your pundit caps and have at it. Plan to spend Tuesday evening right here with us, downing cocktails and half-priced appetizers at Ishmael's, the seedy yet cozy bar around the corner from the global headquarters of RW Enterprises, LLC. Polls close in the battleground states of Indiana and Virgina at 7 p.m. Goose is predicting that we'll know who the winner is by 8:13. Moose, who studies these things much more carefully, thinks Chris Matthews will explode from the effort of not declaring Obama the winner by 7:51. I predict both moms will be drinking Boston Sidecars, a delicious beverage they tried for the first time last night, and may not even notice when the election is called, but, here, without further ado, are Roxie's World's Endorsements, Predictions, Hunches, and Gut Feelings about Election 2008 (praise dog it will soon be over!).

• We endorse and predict the defeat of John McCain and Sarah Palin as president and vice president of the United States. McCain has run an ignoble and at times incoherent campaign that has offered voters half-hearted calls for a continuation of economic and foreign policies that have proven to be tragically unsuccessful in the past eight years. He deserves to lose, and he will.
• We endorse and predict the defeat of Republican candidates up and down the ticket in blue states, red states, purple states, fuchsia states, and magenta with islands of cerulean states in a repudiation of the party that is fully deserved and in our judgment long overdue. The tidal wave will sweep Elizabeth Dole (NC) and John Sununu (NH) out of the United States Senate, and it may well drown Norm Coleman (MN), but we don't see Dems quite getting the 60 seats they need to have a filibuster-proof majority.
• With all our paws and toes crossed, we endorse and predict the (bare) defeat of California's Proposition 8, which calls for amending the state's constitution to disallow same-sex marriage. Latest poll shows the No vote at 50%, but 3% of likely voters are still undecided. This one will hinge on turnout, which is why we don't want Tweety to call the election too early and make Dem voters think they don't need to show up in California.
• With an acute sense of conflict between our convictions and our self-interest, we endorse a No vote on the Maryland state ballot measure that would legalize slot machine gambling -- but we predict the measure will pass and won't be broken-hearted if it does because we are sick and tired of the slots issue being used as a way to avoid dealing with the state's revenue problem. Pass it, and then let's face up to the realities.
  

What, you want more? You want us to go out on a few limbs and make some really bold predictions about toss-up states and the really tight races? Why? So you can come back here on Wednesday and force us to dine on crow casserole again, as poor Moose had to do after her predictions about the Texas and Ohio primaries proved to be so wildly incorrect? Ah, what the heck. It's not like any of the real pundits ever has to pay for being wrong. Here we go.

• Popular vote, presidential election: Obama is going to make it over 50%. We'll say he's going to get 51.2% -- and if he does, every one of our loyal readers has to promise to tell five friends that Roxie's World is the best darn political blog in the nation. Deal?
  
• Electoral vote, presidential election: UVA's Larry Sabato is predicting Obama will come up with 364 electoral votes to McCain's 174. He probably has a whole team of researchers and incredibly complicated metrics (whatever those are) to help him come up with his predictions. Moose read the paper this morning, and she's gonna give Obama 347 to McCain's 191. Why? Because that's what FiveThirtyEight.com editor Nate Silver predicted in Wa Po's Crystal Ball Contest, and she liked his picture.
• Toss-Up States: North Carolina is Gobama. How do we know? Because the Moosians in the Tar Heel State, who changed their party registrations to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary, have decided to stick with the Dem in the general. Moose's home state of Indiana will keep us up late on election night, no matter how early the polls close. As it was in the Dem primary, the Hoosier state will be a nail-biter. There has been some great analysis on why the reliably red state is up for grabs this year, and Moose got a little teary over an Indy Star story about 80-year-old Birch Bayh stumping for Obama in her native state, but we have a hunch McCain might eke out a win here. If he doesn't, we reserve the right to change our predictions about the scale of Obama's popular and electoral victories.
• One Close Race: What the heck. We think Gov. Christine Gregoire will pull off re-election in Washington. Sabato and most of the Post pundits are with us on that one.

Closing Thoughts: It's been a long, strange journey, hasn't it, fellow citizens and loyal fans? We've trudged virtually together through the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire and the searing sun of, oh, you know, those really hot states. As we approach the moment of decision, the moment when the magic and the majesty of democracy will assert itself in millions of individual acts of choice and, yes, hope, we want you all to know that, though we never officially endorsed Barack Obama's candidacy, we will celebrate his triumph, should it come, and welcome his presidency as an historic achievement and a vital political opportunity -- for the Democratic party and the American people. In the days to come, we will not hesitate to hold our party and the nation's leaders-in-waiting to account, to urge them to be bold and just, to move quickly to demonstrate that they deserve the faith that is about to be placed in them. Tonight, though, as we contemplate the scale and significance of the transformations about to occur, we pause to savor the sense of amazing possibility and close with the words of former Wa Po writer Donna Britt, who came back to her old paper this morning to offer these thoughts on the possibility of the United States electing its first African-American president:

For one shining moment, let's call a halt to our red-blue bickering and predicting. Rather than glancing back at our racist past or peering into our uncertain future, we'll allow ourselves a brief celebration of now. We'll be brave and reckless enough to be happily surprised by one undeniable change:

Against all sensible odds and reasoned predictions, untold numbers of Americans of every persuasion have opened their hearts, minds and souls to the possibility that a black man is the best choice to lead them. Whatever happens, an immeasurable amount of light has illuminated our darkness. Once such doors have been pried open, it's hard shutting them as tightly as before.

That's a change worth believing in.

Amen, sister. Vote early and often, kids, and we'll see you back here on Tuesday. Peace out.

Sligo Creek in the Fall

A Brief Photo Essay by Moose

(I sent the moms out for a walk on our trail today so that I could catch up on my napping and fine-tune my election predictions. Moose took her camera along on the 4-mile stroll. Sometimes she feels a little artsy-fartsy, and so we indulge her. Be kind, okay? Ansel Adams she ain't.)

View from the First Bridge:

Approaching Wayne Avenue:

The Stone Bridge:

At Sligo Creek and Maple: