The New York Times has a great look this morning at how some of politicians who took the most outlandish shots at Obama during the campaign - questioning his patriotism and accusing him of anti-Americanism - are now praising his election and the "tremendous signal" it sends.
Also, morning reaction on a potential auto industry bailout, and rumblings of where the GOP will go from here.
And, Desmond Tutu writes an op-ed for the Washington Post.
Jim Rutenberg has a great article in the New York Times this morning regarding the hypocrisy of all those who implied Obama was anti-American and who are now changing their tune (think Lieberman, Palin, Bachmann, etc):
Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for Mr. Lieberman, said that as far as the senator was concerned, "It’s over, and it’s genuinely time to find unity and move forward behind the new president."
And what about that whole bit about Mr. Obama not always putting his country first? "He believes that President-elect Obama — and, then, Senator Obama — is a genuine patriot and loves his country," Mr. Wittmann said. "The only point he was making in his campaign was about partisanship."
Puh-leaze! Here's some more before and after.
Palin before:
Obama is "someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists."
Palin after:
"Let us, let us — let him — be able to kind of savor this moment, one, and not let the pettiness of maybe internal workings of the campaign erode any of the recognition of this historic moment that we’re in. And God bless Barack Obama and his beautiful family."
Bachmann before:
"I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views."
Bachmann after:
She was "extremely grateful that we have an African-American who has won this year." Ms. Bachmann, a Republican, called Mr. Obama’s victory, which included her state, "a tremendous signal we sent."
WE?
::::::
Desmond Tutu writes an inspiring op-ed for the Washington Post on how Obama's election has changed the world's view of the United States:
Today Africans walk taller than they did a week ago -- just as they did when Nelson Mandela became South Africa's first black president in 1994. Not only Africans, but people everywhere who have been the victims of discrimination at the hands of white Westerners, have a new pride in who they are. If a dark-skinned person can become the leader of the world's most powerful nation, what is to stop children everywhere from aiming for the stars? The fact that Obama's Kenyan grandfather was a convert to Islam may -- shamefully -- have been controversial in parts of the United States, but elsewhere in the world, Obama's multi-faith heritage is an inspiration.
And the president-elect has one additional key quality: He is not George W. Bush.
The entire editorial is inspiring, but also a sobering reminder of how far we have gone off-course in the last eight years.
::::::
George Packer in The New Yorker writes of the potential transformational power of the Obama presidency:
Barack Obama’s decisive defeat of John McCain is the most important victory of a Democratic candidate since 1932. It brings to a close another conservative era, one that rose amid the ashes of the New Deal coalition in the late sixties, consolidated its power with the election of Ronald Reagan, in 1980, and immolated itself during the Presidency of George W. Bush. Obama will enter the White House at a moment of economic crisis worse than anything the nation has seen since the Great Depression; the old assumptions of free-market fundamentalism have, like a charlatan’s incantations, failed to work, and the need for some "new machinery" is painfully obvious. But what philosophy of government will characterize it?
and:
For the first time since the Johnson Administration, the idea that government should take bold action to create equal opportunity for all citizens doesn’t have to explain itself in a defensive mumble.
::::::
Headline of the morning: We're All American Cheerleaders Now(Glasgow Sundy Mail)
The enormity of what American voters have done is still sinking in.
The land of opportunity, of freedom and dreams, is back on track. America and the rest of the world have hope again.
::::::
J. Todd Foster, a columnist for the Bristol Herald Courier (TN) asks Will GOP continue to isolate itself with vocal base?:
Will the GOP be the party of Palin – intellectually incurious, parochial, vacuous, George W. Bush – or a new party that rejects the politics of hate, intolerance and narrow-mindedness?
Will the GOP continue to isolate itself with a small but vocal base out of step with the rest of America, or will it pitch a bigger tent and welcome back moderates such as Colin Powell?
If it goes the route of the former, GOP faithful had better brace for a long slog as a distinct minority in both houses of Congress and in the executive branch.
My guess? Yes, the GOP will continue to isolate itself with its vocal base. It will choose to be the party of Palin, not Powell. What do you think?
::::::
On a related note, Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed in the New York Times pondering that Obama's election may be the end of the "war on brains."
::::::
Speaking of the future of the GOP, Marty Peretz at The New Republicwrites:
Many Republicans are trying to deconstruct the meaning of the Obama election so that it comes out meaning nothing at all.
But Ryan Sager, writing in Rupert Murdoch's New York Post on Saturday, tells it like it is. The Grand Old Party is really a small cook-out with rancid meat as fare.
I think I may make that my new signature line?
::::::
The Anchorage Daily News says "everything has changed" for Palin on her return to Alaska:
Gov. Palin spent the last two months questioning the patriotism of the new president. She accused him of hanging out with terrorists. Palin now says it was just the rough-and-tumble of party politics. But how is that going to play when she goes to Washington looking for help with gas line construction or military base protection or exemption from environmental rules?
and:
For the rest of her career in Alaska, every move Palin makes will be second-guessed for ulterior motives. Is she taking on this or that priority because it's good for the state or because it looks good on her resume?
::::::
Many editorial writers are focusing on the possible bailout of the American automobile industry. Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star (MO) columnist, argues that we should think long and hard before rewarding a "poorly managed company" (General Motors) that "made so many strategic errors over the years" with taxpayer money. The St. Louis Dispatch thinks it may be too late to save the US auto industry.
Meanwhile, the Akron Beacon Journal (OH) says the auto industry is too important to fail.
I have pretty strong reservations about a bailout of GM and the other American automakers. What do you think?