Barack Obama is the 44th President, as spoken by the electorate, with both the popular and college vote. It has been a long eight years, and readers of this weblog should know that I’m thrilled but also ready to go to work. There is so much to do.

This is a climax to a long American story, with its triumphs, courage, and shames, and hopefully Langston Hughes is smiling. I’m with Mark with the Babylon Five quote (because B5’s narrative is right in step).

This is not a time for hatreds or disregrets or anger, though. Of course, McCain and his supporters are disappointed, perhaps angry, and the fights will continue.

But I’m ready to work and think. There is so much to do.

That darned liberal media strikes again.

The famous tax bill.

Over the past seven years the “just print it” problem has persisted. The Leader says this or that and that makes the cut. For example, Allen and Martin at Politico write:

As part of a plan to reinvigorate his flagging campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is considering additional economic measures aimed directly at the middle class that are likely to be rolled out this week, campaign officials said.

Among the measures being considered are tax cuts – perhaps temporary – for capital gains and dividends, the officials said.
. . .
McCain advisers hope that by being specific, he can pose a contrast to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who has been benefited from taking a vague but consistent approach to policy during the economic crisis.

And the writers aren’t even attempting irony.

Then there’s this:

Mr. Paulson heeded those pleas. In his remarks on Friday, he carefully noted that the government would acquire only “nonvoting” shares in companies. And officials said the law lets the Treasury write most of its own restrictions on executive pay, and those restrictions can be lenient if they are applied to a set of fairly healthy companies.

Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy raises a perfectly legitimate point:

Nonetheless, I fear that the conjunction of an Obama victory, a strongly Democratic Congress, and a major economic crisis will produce a massive and difficult to reverse expansion of government

This is one of the great chopping points that divides sides on political theory and federalism. But it’s also fraught with ambiguity, which is perhaps a good thing. It could be argued, for example, that laws against pot smoking are a legitimate government intrusion on people’s lives, whereas the regulation of alcohol can be viewed as non-intrusive.

These are arguments that need to exist. Legitimacy is an important issue. Where people should disagree is on the definitions and the details. What constitutes big or good government? What trade offs should be agreed to? It’s difficult to say now, given recent events. At the moment, people may be skeptical of but also thankful for a rather large hand, even with temporary nationalization.

We need to keep cool heads.

On that note, I say Go Obama!

I’m with Dave Winer on this one.

Interesting, but predictable results from an Economist poll of economists on the candidates. Here’s a bite:

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.

Thanks to Matthew Nisbet for the link.

I ran home yesterday from a wonderful gallery talk to watch Speech Night with Governor Sarah Palin and Senator Joe Biden. I caught the first part on the radio and watched the remainder on TV, and my impressions are that this is all pretty sorry stuff.

But what do we deserve? Not much else.

First the format. It was a speech session, not really a debate. Gwen Ifill asked a question and both candidates responded with a speech that had passing relation to the matter of the question. Interestingly enough, the questions set the stage for this. Here’s Ifill’s first question: “As America watches these things happen on Capitol Hill, Senator Biden, was this the worst of Washington or the best of Washington that we saw play out?”

Well, Gwen (I can call you by your first name, right), it was the worst of times and it was the best of times here in good ol Warshington.

This reads as a rhetorical question, as the subject “Washington” is fairly loaded and vague, as are “worst” or “best.”

And so the speech begins. Biden:

I think it’s neither the best or worst of Washington, but it’s evidence of the fact that the economic policies of the last eight years have been the worst economic policies we’ve ever had. As a consequence, you’ve seen what’s happened on Wall Street.

and Palin:

You know, I think a good barometer here, as we try to figure out has this been a good time or a bad time in America’s economy, is go to a kid’s soccer game on Saturday, and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, “How are you feeling about the economy?”

It’s hard to believe that both speech makers were not aware of the questions before hand.

Second, the context and method. You could take two people who know absolutely nothing about economics and war, provide them with stock points and statistics, and you’d have pretty much the same result. It was a puppet show. Sarah Palin continually referred to the list she had on the lectern and recited nonsense regardless of the topic with “you can’t stump me” glee and Joe Biden, who has it all in his head, could sound a little more natural without the notes, but basically listed this and that when required, regardless of context.

None of this assists anyone. Nothing of intelligence and mental effort here, and, like a fool, I sat there watching hoping that the one I support didn’t make some major mistake (and would initiate debate points) and the one I think is a disaster waiting to happen would stutter with confusion.

Conclusion: Shame on me.