On graciousness

I really don’t feel like being gracious on McCain’s loss.

I wasn’t gracious in 2000, when George W. Bush “stole” the election from Al Gore. And even though I came to believe that he didn’t steal it—notably after even the New York Times recount showed that Bush won Florida, and I started saying, “Y’know, if Gore had won Tennessee, he’d have won the election”—but I wasn’t gracious then.

I doubt I’ll be gracious now. I’ve never been a good loser.

Am I happy that an African-American is going to be our next president? Yes and no. I still don’t believe Obama is qualified enough to be president, and frankly, I’d be much happier if I were celebrating the first female president. I’d be gracious for Hillary, I think, because of that. In fact, if it had been Hillary, odds are high I would have voted for her in the end. In which case, there’d be no need for graciousness.

So if you’re looking for me to take the high ground, well, you are on the blog that has a category titled “Juvenile Scorn.” And one called “Evil Meryl.” Perhaps you may want to look elsewhere for the grace in defeat. I don’t think I’ve ever had that quality.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to On graciousness

  1. David M says:

    The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 11/05/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

  2. Sabba Hillel says:

    When Sarah Palin faces Hillary Clinton in 2012, which would you support?

    Her first term of office will end in 2010 and her second term in 2014. Thus, she can run for president the same way that she ran in this election.

  3. Jeff says:

    Why would Hillary run in 2012?

  4. Michael Lonie says:

    Because Obama is likely to be a one term loser like Carter and Hillary lusts for the White House and the power of the Presidency like Paris lusted for Helen.

Comments are closed.