Quite frankly, the United States is in great peril. We have gaping budget deficits, two wars, a recession and the threat of terrorism. If you think my generation was about to vote for Alan Keyes (or even Colin Powell) just to make him the first Black president, then you missed a pretty good election.

President-elect Obama exudes confidence, which is predicated on attention to detail and planning. During the campaign John McCain criticized Obama for having a chief of staff (Rahm Emanuel) lined up before election day. He named Emmanuel within 24 hours of winning the election, putting him about six weeks ahead of where Bill Clinton was in 1992. This is the same discipline that had Obama ready to pound Hillary Clinton after the Super Tuesday primary yielded no clear winner. He won because he ran a superior campaign and understand the message that would resonate with the American people. In the end, race did not matter.

Obama reaching the presidency is the merely a visible landmark along a path that has already been paved. For people under 35, it is amazing that we have a Black president, not because we have seen the history of black oppression, but rather because we have read about it. Quite simply, the older generations are just realizing how little race means to those born in the 1970s and after. Let’s just say that I always figured it would be a lot less likely to see a half Black, half Thai man dominate the lily-white sport of golf than I did that a bi-racial guy, who finished first in his Harvard Law School class, would make it to the White House.

Over the last few days I have listened to extremely interesting discussions on race and what it means to have to first Black president (Talk of the Nation, On Point, Countdown, Slate and a number of others have all covered in in great detail). Even during John McCain’s extremely elegant and gracious acceptance speech, he made a reference to it (unfortunately called it a moment of pride for “African-Americans,” when he clearly should have said “all Americans”). Yet, you hardly see Barack Obama focused on it, beyond acknowledging it in his acceptance speech. Remember, he’s always been the remarkable Black guy. He started running as someone who had been Senator for two years and took down the Clinton machine. Let’s just say he’s not exactly wanting for self-confidence. The result does not seem to surprise him

And so too, it is hardly a revelation to people from my generation. I have been represented by Black Congressmen for the last 26 years, a Black mayor from ages 10-14, one of my Senators is a woman and the other is a Jew, and my governor is blind and Black (and he replaced a Jew). So what if I’m from Brooklyn. The governor of Louisiana (who has a very good short at being on the 2012 GOP ticket) is the son of Indian immigrants. Louisi-freaking-ana. If Louisianans can elect a 36 year-old whose legal first name is “Piyush,” somehow a half-Black president isn’t that nuts.

This does not mean that there is racial utopia in the US. There have only been three Black US Senators since Reconstruction. Harold Ford Jr. probably lost his 2006 Tennessee Senate race because he is Black.  And there was an extremely racist advertisement that probably did him in during the last two weeks that year. But people my age are more impressed with the first Black president from an historical context than anything else. After all, there was never any question if Obama was going to win the under-40 vote. It was if he could get enough of the over-55 folks. As the current occupant of the White House is fond of saying, this racial component of this election is for to judge. I’m focused on the policies ahead of us (unfortunately Dubya never added that second line).

The election is behind us and Obama won because the country has been mismanaged on every level over the last eight years. People may say that Obama won because he is Black, because there was a financial crisis or as a result of the Palin pick. The truth is that a Democrat was going to win this year as long as the nominee didn’t completely fuck it up.

On Passover Jews go through a list of things God did in Egypt, and after each one they say “dayenu“–it would have been enough. The Democrats needed an issue to run on. They had a recession. Dayenu. The American army is stuck in Iraq, while Bin Laden walks free. Dayenu. There was the mismanagement of Katrina. Dayenu. Surplus to deficit. Crumbling infrastructure. Dependence on foreign oil. An ignorance about the environmental damage being done. Dayenu, dayenu dayenu.

America is lucky that Obama won in that environment resisteding the inclination to run a divisive campaign. He ran negative ads, but they were not the type that would tear the country apart. That’s why many of the people who voted for McCain are not angry about the result–even if they have reservations about how Obama made respond.

President-elect Obama won a clean and decisive victory. His call for change matched the country’s urgent desire. His planning has been superb, and we can only hope that is the model he will follow as president. America elected an extradinarily intelligent man who knows how to be brutally tough when he needs to (just ask Hillary).

He is already focused on the next task: the unenviable job of putting together a huge staff and cabinet without hiring friends who might not be up to the job. He didn’t even lose one day in moving from running to governing. America elected the best person to lead this country.

And I heard this rumor that he’s Black.

And with no more hype, my predictions from 12,000 miles away.

States that will go to McCain (toss-ups only)

1. West Virginia
2. Georgia
3. Missouri
4. Montana (could be close)
5. The Dakotas
6. Indiana

States that will go to Obama

1. Pennsylvania
2. Virginia
3. Ohio
4. Florida
5. North Carolina
6. New Mexico
7. Nevada
8. Colorado
9. Iowa
10. New Hampshire

Total electoral count: 352-185

State that I really think Obama will win…but totally freaks me out because the numbers are nuts and they elected a wrestler: Minnesota. Don’t be surprised if weird stuff happens there.

Don’t be shocked if: Obama wins Arizona. I’m not even putting it in the afforementioned toss-ups, but I’m just saying.

Bizzaro thing that just might happen: Nebraska uses district by district electoral college delegates. Obama could win one in Omaha.

“Vulnerables” who are going to win easily: Mitch McConnell (KY) and Chambliss (GA)

One Democrat who will fall (and no one will shed a tear): Murtha (PA). He’s been exposed as a real creep.

One race I would never try to predict: Al Franken and Norm Coleman. This is the all-time weirdest race. i have no idea what to make of this. Plus a former Senator is in the race as a third party candidate. He’s the guy whom Jesse Ventura appointed to serve after Paul Wellstone died. Seriously, which is a weirder voting state, Florida or Minnesota?

Senator I will be happy to see go: Elizabeth Dole. Yuck.

Most exciting “down-ticket” devopment: Two new senators named Udall will be elected. They are in different states, and apparently not related. [and will both win in the same year.] What are the odds of that? 

And that’s the wrap-up from the man who gets every prediction right. After all, I told you it would be Obama-Warner vs. McCain-Pawlenty before anyone else did.

{Update}-All of the states went as called, minus Indiana. The Omaha district did go to Obama. Dole lost, McConnell won, and Chambliss was way ahead, although he failed to hit 50 percent, meaning there will be a run-off election. Weird stuff happened in the Franken-Coleman race (it’s down to a 200-vote differential at last count). The one call that was totally off? Murtha. I thought he’s lose because he’s a dumb jerk. He won by 18 points.

From Governor Palin, we should expect no more than the cynical attacks on Senator Obama that equate him with a terrorist. After all, this is the same person who responds to questions about what newspapers she reads by saying “whatever is in front of me,” and clarifies by saying that she reads “all of them.” If you can’t name a national newspaper, probably you don’t see what’s wrong with riling up crowds to call your opponent a “terrorist.”

But John McCain is different. As wrong as he is on so many issues, and as much as he has switched his stands on everything from immigration and torture to the Bush tax cuts over the last eight years, he is genuinely a good man with a sense of right. And he must know that what is going on in his campaign is wrong.

Congressman John Lewis, a civil rights veteran and a man Senator McCain cited as one of his heroes earlier this year, has come out and compared the current campaign to that of segregationist George Wallace in the 1960s. he said:

sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse

John McCain is no George Wallace, but if he’s not careful, history may forget this distinction. And that is tragic. McCain spent the first 66 years of his life standing up for honor and dignity in the face of opposition and small-mindedness. Now, in the midst of a financial crisis and two wars, he has equated his opponent with a 1960s radical because they sat on boards together.

McCain argues that he is merely questioning Obama’s judgment and honesty. This would be fair enough, even though there is strong evidence that contradicts McCain’s assertions about the Ayers connection. (The non-partisan FactCheck.org said this about the rhetoric: “McCain says in an Internet ad that the two “ran a radical ‘education’ foundation” in Chicago. But the supposedly “radical” group was supported by a Republican governor and included on its board prominent local civic leaders, including one former Nixon administration official who has given $1,500 to McCain’s campaign this year.”)

The point, however, is no so much the validity, or lack thereof, of any of the specific claims that McCain makes. More critically, McCain needs to understand that his strategists are telling him to go after the connection because it stirs up a vague sense of anger and hatred. The campaign argues that this isn’t about Obama being a terrorist or some sort of “other,” but rather it’a question of honesty and candor. Surely no one would mistake dishonesty and poor judgment for having personal terrorist links.

Except that many people are missing that point. Those looking for a reason to hate Obama are seizing on this alleged attack on the honesty and judgment of the senator and making the connection that Obama himself is part of some part of a vague terrorist network.

One might be inclined to dismiss the jump from being less-than-candid, to being a participant in a terrorist network, as something that only a nasty crowd in Minnesota could make. Just because people yelled out “terrorist” and a woman called him “an Arab” (as if that would have made him a terrorist), it doesn’t mean that the campaign is asking voters to think that Obama is a terrorist. And it doesn’t mean that many people out there are confusing poor judgment in associating with Ayers with Obama actually being friends with terrorists. Right?

But what McCain is starting to realize, and what his managers have long known, is that people hear the rhetoric of the campaign and take that as a cue to equate Obama, with all of his “otherness,” to a terrorist sympathizer. Don’t believe me? Just listen to his own running mate:

Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country?

Read that again. Obama is not untrustworthy because he made poor decisions. He is someone who is friends with terrorists because he sees America as imperfect. She is saying that the Ayers association was a conscious decision made because of his connection to the 1960s radical left. If Sarah Palin doesn’t understand the distinction in argument then why is John McCain so surprised that so many other people can’t either?

John McCain has long been an honorable man, but he is now in an untenable situation. If he continues down the current path of ignoring the country’s problems and focusing on hate-inspiring attacks, he may be able to convince enough people to vote for him to become the next president. Yet it seems that a man of such character would rather lose an election than lose his honor and legacy by sowing the seeds of hatred.

The NYTimes and CBS conducted a poll a few days ago and released its findings today. It shows a noticeable jump in support for McCain, but similar increases for Obama. Much more interestingly, there seem to be a few trends that buck convential thinking on McCain’s supposed inroads.

First, according to the survery McCain did not move at all among women voters after his VP pick. In contrast, Obama was 9 points stronger among women after the conventions than before. (McCain picked up slightly among men, while Obama lost the same 3 points.)

Second, Obama and McCain both saw modest increases in the youngest demographics (under 44), while the Democrat clobbered McCain in the 45-65 group, and the Republican similarly picked up a lot among the older crowd.

Third, independents trended heavily toward Obama versus the previous poll, an indication that McCain is moving toward securing his base, but perhaps not moving beyond that (or even losing ground there).

The last two points are that Obama continues to win suburbanites, and three out of four people overall thought McCain chose his VP choice to win the election rather than to govern effectively.

If you want to follow all of the silly machinations (and I do), you can go to this page, which has every tiny movement in any country. However, the more important picture is always in the internals. And the internals show that Obama should not be panicking.

Another word I would use, other than “maverick,” is “impulsive.” It’s fine to have ideas that go outside the box, but it is equally important to consider the logic of those ideas, and carefully consider before deciding. Am I saying that he didn’t carefully consider Palin just because he had only met her once before deciding that she would be capable of running the United States? Let’s just say that when I bring in an intern, I usually have two interviews.

This really isn’t about Sarah Palin, who, as John McCain might say, seems like a nice young woman. It is about the man at the top of ticket, the guy willing to take big risks. Conservatives gush about the serious vetting process McCain’s staff took. This is from ultra-conservative Newsmax:

Sarah Palin’s path to the Republican ticket started with her name on a list _ and a team of some 25 people pouring through public records searching for trouble spots without her knowledge. Then came the 70-question survey and a nearly three-hour interview.

Wow! She answered 70 questions and had a nearly three-hour interview. And people googled her public record. Joe Biden underwent years of public scrutiny, including the time he was in the primary. Obama was grilled for 18 months during his Democratic primary battle. And he convinced 20 million voters he was the best choice.

Seriously, McCain spoke to her once, had someone else interview her once and went over public records. And this is the most important hire he will make in public office. If elected he will be choosing the Attorney General, Secretary of State, Head of Homeland Security, thousands of lower-level appointees and possibly a Supreme Court Justic or two. Is one interview and a questionaire the criteria he will use? Remember, she was not a known quantity. This was the governor of a state that doesn’t even border on any others. It’s not like he, or anyone else on the national stage, knew her well.

Maybe she does have the ability to lead the country. I suspect not, but it’s always possible. But I can tell you one thing for sure, John McCain has not done enough research to know himself. And that’s the danger of trusting a “maverick” with the power of the presidency.

McCain has made his new campaign strategy an attempt to drive a wedge between women voters who are weary about his agenda and believe in Obama’s platform, but who don’t really like Obama. This is a bit weird to say the least. McCain is now a candidate without a message, and the Palin choice shows that ten times over. His theme is “aren’t you pissed about Hillary?”

The best case for John McCain is that he is an experienced leader in a dangerous world. Up until last week, that was the message, and it was convincing to some. This logic would say that we can’t take a risk on someone with Obama’s experience, or lack thereof. McCain strongly believes this. Or so we thought. He argued it would be extremely dangerous for our country to be led by someone who only has four years of national experience. But does he really believe this?

Sarah Palin, if elected, will have been governor for fewer than two years. Of the smallest state in population in America. Before her 500+ days as governor, she was mayor of Wasilla for eight years and on the city council for another four. If you think that sounds like a decent resume, it might be pointed out, according to the city’s own website, the population of Wasilla is 6,715 (the census says it considerably less, but when your city is under 10,000, who cares?) When Obama launched his campaign she was still mayor of a town with fewer residents than the Yankees have employees.

So, the McCain argument is that the world is a dangerous place, experience matters, Obama is “a nice young man” (but is he ready to lead), but Sarah Palin, three years his junior and with a much thinner resume, is ready to take the reins from the 72 year-old John McCain. Talk about mixed messages. If, God forbid, something should happen to John McCain, Sarah Palin, a woman who 20 months ago was mayor of Wasilla, and since has been the governor of the state with the [4th] smallest population in the union (total population is less than Columbus, Ohio), would be in charge of negotiating with President Putin, President Hu and Hugo Chavez. If a Palin administration would be willing to speak with any world leaders who might not agree with her.

There are of course reasons why McCain picked her. She is an outside the beltway type and self-styled “reformer.” She is very conservative, so he has pleased the hard-right of the party, like Karl Rove, who loved the pick. She is physically attractive, like a John Edwards or Dan Quayle. But most importantly, she is a woman. And here is the real and most obvious reason why he went with a governor that almost no one had heard of 12 hours ago.

This brings us to something stunningly obvious in the two vice presidential picks: Obama chose Biden because he would help him govern, while McCain picked Palin on strictly political grounds. The entire McCain strategy can now be summed up in one sentence: Convince Hillary supporters not to go to Obama. In the most important decision of the election, Obama chose good governance, while McCain went for cynical politics.

No longer can McCain make the already-dubious claim that he is better on foreign policy. No longer can he try to say that experience matters most. His entire campaign is holding the base and peeling off women voters from the Hillary crowd.

Can it work? I doubt it, but you never know. It is hard to imagine that any Hillary supporters who agree with her on the issues would go for a McCain ticket just because there is a woman on it. Palin is strongly anti-choice. She believes in the Bush tax cuts for the rich and opposes universal healthcare. Hell, last week she even said, “I’m not one… who would attribute [global warming] to being man-made.”

In fact, a recent interview with the ultra right-wing website Newsmax.com tells you all you need to know about Governor Palin’s extreme views on virtually everything. Here are some of what she thinks:

On energy: “We have a very pro-development president in President Bush, and yet he failed to push for opening up parts of Alaska to drilling through Congress — and a Republican-controlled Congress, I might add.” That’s right, Bush’s biggest failing is not drilling in Alaska wildlife areas. McCain doesn’t support drilling in the Artic…even now.

“I would push for a strong military and a sound energy policy. I believe that Alaska can help set an example on energy policy.” Drill our way out of it!

On global warming: “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I’m not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.” Yikes!

On abortion: “I’m pro-life. I’ll do all I can to see every baby is created with a future and potential. The legislature should do all it can to protect human life.” This wasn’t Hillary’s platform, was it?

John McCain has now staked his entire candidacy on the gender issue. He has gone all-in on the notion that he could not win on experience or ideas. Instead he picked someone with 20 months experience running a state with fewer inhabitants than Dayton, Ohio. This was not a pick based on governance, it was based on trying to exploit a perceived Hillary-Obama rift. That it is no way to lead a country.

First, why in the world are they arguing about whether John Edwards is fit to be president? He came in third in the primary. He will never be president. Second, while I don’t think that being unfaithful in 1980 disqualifies someone from being president, the hypocrisy of seeing a panel pile on a former presidential candidate (who is clearly a creep and a phony, as I argued months ago in no uncertain terms), but steadfastly defend McCain, is breathtaking.

Here’s part of what I had to say about John Edwards in November:

This is a guy who wouldn’t know integrity if it showed up in his law offices with a neck brace on (actually that might be the only time he would recognize it). He is a man who sold the Iraq War when it was convenient, and rails against it when it is not. He takes the high road when it’s easy, but avoids it when he’s behind in the polls.

So I’m no fan of his, although his focus on poverty reduction has important. But I’m not sure why conservatives think it’s such a good idea to focus on the infidelity of a man who neither holds, nor is running for, any public office.

For the record, McCain was cheating seven years after returning from Vietnam, and he got re-married to a 26 year-old beer heiress a month after divorcing his 42 year-old wife who was disfigured in a car accident while he was a POW. Again, not saying that it disqualifies him from being president, but conservatives should really get off their high horses before they go after former candidates. And this is no endorsement of anything John Edwards has done.

But at least he’s being compared to a great American hero like the gun-totin’ Charlton Heston in that ad (I think we can take the gun from him now).  He also compares Obama to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton. Get it? They’re all famous. Not famous like Michael Jordan, Oprah or Bill Gates. Famous like dumb blonds.

But surely there are issues that McCain is running on, right? He wouldn’t simply be attacking on personal grounds if he didn’t have an agenda, would he?

Well, as the previous ad mentions, off-shore drilling is a top priority to reduce oil prices. Except that oil won’t come on-line for at least 5-10 years-meaning it would have zero impact during the next administration. Plus, he is for a gas tax holiday which-while no one believes it would actually reduce price-theoretically lowers the price at the pump, thus driving demand back up and slowing the move away from gas-guzzlers like SUVs. In other words, his plan, which would only reduce government revenue, but not actual price, even in theory doesn’t work. Instead, the idea is to spend a possible future boost in oil supply today. Get it?

And if McCain thinks there is so much oil out there to be had, and he knows it takes about a decade to start getting oil flowing in these sites, shouldn’t he have been advocating this position before this year? I mean, he’s been in the Senate since 1988. And has always been opposed to this policy. In fact, it wasn’t until June 18, 2008 that McCain decided offshore drilling was a good idea. That’s about 8,000 days into his Senate career. So which do you think was a truer measure of his belief: the position he held for 8,000 days of public life, or the one he adopted 100 days before a presidential election?

And if Obama is so stupid, why did John McCain just decide to take the Obama position on Afghanistan? Suddenly Afghanistan, the country whose former leadership actually attacked America, is a priority (or at some point in the future it will be anyway).

But of course, there is one issue that the GOP can always crush the Dems on: taxes. The Democrats are a bunch of socialists who want to take from the rich. The GOP does not raise taxes. Period. You can trust McCain. That’s the biggest difference between the candidates. Right? July 27, 2008:

[George] STEPHANOPOULOS: So, that means payroll tax increases are on the table, as well?

MCCAIN: There is nothing that’s off the table. I have my positions, and I’ll articulate them. But nothing’s off the table.

I don’t want tax increases. Of course I’d like to have young Americans have some of their money put into an account with their name on it. But that doesn’t mean that anything is off the table…

So while McNasty absolutely refuses to consider rolling back the Bush tax cut on the richest Americans, the payroll tax, which is most heavily tilted against the working poor (along with sales taxes) is still a possible target for increase. That’s right, he wouldn’t consider taxing the rich in any circumstance, but the poor are fair game.

No wonder McNasty is running on Paris Hilton and the idea of a false messiah. His policies are flawed and contradictory. But at least he has a plan for Czechoslovakia. That’s right, twice in two days he referred to a country that broke up more than 15 years ago. Once, you can understand. But the next day as well?

All of this points to one clear conclusion: John McCain is the best man to be US President…circa 1988.

Two parts I love about this:

1. Toward the end Sanford starts talking about the McCain-Bush approach. Which, uh, is not one thing.

2. Wolf asks him about being VP at the end, almost as if to make it more apparent that this interview has knocked him off the list.

At least that McCain’s moment from last week is no longer the most awkward moment ever. Congratulations Mark Sanford!