SixFifty

lessons from America

My DC political pilgrimage

It was has become something of a post-election tradition of mine, I spend a day walking along the Washington Mall: visiting monuments to past presidents and the current seats of political power; reflecting on the election results and what it means. 

     

This year was no exception.  Like last time, glorious sunshine accompanied my stroll through DC’s famous sites.  But unlike 2004, the political climate was substantially changed for the better.  Then I was coming to terms with the depressing reality of not just 4 more years of Bush, but extended Republican control of both Houses of Congress, and a Supreme Court that was likely to become more more conservative.  I was looking for glimmers of hope where ever I could.   This time, hope seemed to be radiating brightly: from the steps of the Lincoln Monument, all the way along the Mall, and even to the railings of the White House. 

And not just hope, but progressive activism too.

Overlooking the Reflecting Pool, on those famous steps, Avaaz had set up their boards for people to write their “yes we can” messages of goodwill to Obama and reminders of the global change that hopefully his victory will herald. 

Less than 3 days before, and apparently spontaneously (and without precedent), a crowd of over a thousand DC residents had gathered by the famous White House railings to celebrate Obama’s victory.  Now outside the White House, students were marching up and down the street calling for American foreign policy to be more proactive in halting genocide in Darfur.   And at the far end of the grassy Mall, by Capitol Hill, a ‘tent city’ had sprung up.  Again the issue was Darfur - which has far greater prominence than here in the UK; where the Aegis Trust and its student groups are some of the few who are very active on it.  These tents had been bought and decorated by groups across the US and were to be sent on to provide shelter for families in the Darfur refugee camps that have sprung up for those forced out of their homes and villages.

   

My pilgrimage was a restorative one.  It was also a chance to marvel at the historic achievement of Barack Obama and everyone who had supported him.  Everywhere I went, to slightly misquote Tony Blair, “the hand of history was on my shoulder”.  Here were the memorials to the great Presidents and one day Obama might join these figures. There were two really emotional moments for me.  The first was sitting on the Lincoln Memorial steps, close to the spot where Martin Luther King gave his ‘I have a dream’ speech.  The second was at the railings of the White House, thinking that shortly an intelligent guy, an inspirational speaker, a pluralist - and yes - a black man whose father was African, was about to become President and occupy this building, a seat of global power.  “Yes we can”. “Yes we did”. Indeed.

However, there was one thing that did trouble me on my trek through DC.  And it was the same in 04 too.  The Lincoln Memorial.  The secular, pluralist nature of my political pilgrimage clashes against the religious and authoritarian symbolism of the building.  The Memorial is treated as a  ’holy of holies’, a venerated shrine, a temple.   You ascend these vast steps to pay homage to a towering figure seated on a throne.  Lincoln as god’s presence here on earth, it almost seemed to be saying.  The ultimate in (non)separation of church and state.  Try unpicking that one!  But the aspect that made me feel most uncomfortable is the hallowed, reverential atmosphere inside; the closed, dark interior; the relative lack of space (physical and metaphorical) or light for questioning, for different views. 

  
If the Lincoln Memorial seems to represent one major strand of America, then the Jefferson Memorial represents another.  A more democratic building in every sense: rounded; open on many sides; light streaming in; different paths, entrances and perspectives for people to take.  The building, and the words of Jefferson inside, convey and inspire the tolerance and pluralism of the nation. 

  

Fittingly, as the sunset over the unmistakeable DC skyline, my journey came to an end.

NB. A slideshow of all these photos and more can be viewed here

November 18, 2008 Posted by sixfifty | On the Campaign Trail, global perspective | , , , , , , , , , | No Comments

Election Reflections 2004 - a view from my past

In the course of reflecting upon my post-08 election experiences, I came across an old article of mine.  I had written it back in November 2004, after my short trip (holiday rather than campaigning) to the US over the election period.  The article in full is below.  Some of the memories may be painful, but that defeat was for so many people - including me - a catalyst and a continued motivator for the political activism that has brought us to where we are now.  I’ll leave others to judge whether my words were at all prescient and prophetic, or just naive.  Irrespective, this piece shows some of the roots of my journey and thinking (and passion for covering the presidential election) that has come to fruition this year.  

‘Cause we made a promise we swore we’d always remember

No retreat, baby, no surrender
Blood brothers on a stormy night
With a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender         (lyrics: Bruce Springsteen)

 

Listening again to a webcast of ‘The Boss’ singing the anthem to John Kerry’s campaign and then introducing the candidate to the 80,000 strong crowd in Madison, Wisconsin, takes me back to that place: five days to the election; “hope is on the way”; and I am standing somewhere towards the back of the rally fervently waving my Kerry-Edwards placard and trying desperately to believe. To believe in the candidate; to believe in the American people; to believe in a Kerry victory. After what happened last time, there could surely be “no retreat, no surrender”…. .




Until the first polls closed, the majority of people inside the packed bars on Capitol Hill were nervously optimistic. But, after a couple of hours of disappointing results, I began to see the flip-side to my decision to spend election night in a city that voted 90% Democrat. The only big cheer came when Barak Obama’s victory for the Illinois Senate seat was announced. There was genuine passion and support for Obama; possibly more so than for Kerry himself. When Bush was declared the winner in Florida, people started drifting out of the bar and those that remained became increasingly sombre. At a party organised by the Center for Voting and Democracy, the mood by this stage was decidedly flat - to such an extent that it was almost soporific. It was as though there had been a collective draining of energy at the realisation of the result. I wasn’t ready for defeat yet and went to a diner to continue watching the coverage. People were still looking at big TV screens, but much less intently now. For this numbness - an overwhelming sense of shock and disbelief as much as anything - had set in. One exception was a distraught college student, sobbing uncontrollably as her boyfriend tried to comfort her. She had been a Kerry activist, campaigning (to no avail) in Virginia for much of the past year. The rawness of the emotion was a reminder not just about the hard-fought nature and closeness of the campaign, but also about what seemed to be at stake.

My own personal quest to make sense of it all revolved around a pilgrimage through downtown Washington DC that I undertook over the following three days. First up was the Lincoln Memorial, bustling with visitors and school groups; all keen to have their photo taken next to the imposing figure of Lincoln, or on those famous steps. The Gettysburg Address is carved into the wall and the language and symbolism of both words and building is unmistakable: patriotism; strength; freedom through war; and invocations of God. This sacred place is seen by many Americans as the spiritual centre of their nation.

Next stop was the Jefferson Memorial. It may have only been a short and picturesque stroll around the Washington Basin, but it seemed much further away in terms of its current place in the identity and hearts of the population. There was virtually no one there, bar a few small groups of Japanese tourists. The location - overlooking the water and surrounded by trees - engendered a sense of tranquillity and suggested the prioritisation of thought and reflection over action. It was a conscious manifestation of Jefferson’s Enlightenment philosophy. Inside the Memorial, inscriptions and displays emphasised Jefferson’s belief in the quest for knowledge and “light” (reason); science and its advancement; and freedom through education and peace - all couched in more inclusive religious language. This Memorial, together with the Roosevelt one just along the bank, seemed to speak to a very different America than that which had voted Republican the previous day.

So there they were: the competing visions and legacies of Jefferson and Lincoln - the struggle for a nation’s identity. As a glance at a map of the electoral college results shows, there is a clear geographic dividing line between these two Americas. This split has much to do with the direction that people want their country to go in. One direction points towards the coasts and a more secular, socially liberal society and (post-)modern lifestyle. The other direction points towards the Bible Belt and a more faith-based, socially conservative society. Many Americans straddle the two. But this does not negate the central premise: McWorld or ‘the Word’ - where is the US heading? With Bush’s re-election the latter, at least in the domestic sphere, seems to be in the ascendancy.

However, my visit to the Smithsonian’s American History Museum - to view the original flag that inspired the composition of the national anthem - indicates that the country’s schism may not yet be critical. For patriotism (or what may be better described as nationalism, with all the negative traits that that term evokes) is still very strong in the US. It almost always has been, but now post-September 11th it is even more of a dominant and unifying force. The museum’s most prominently displayed exhibit was the huge flag that was erected on top of the still-smouldering Pentagon the day after it was attacked.

A few hundred metres away, one of the most recent additions to DC’s ‘museum-mile’ is located: the Holocaust Memorial Museum. Perhaps it is no surprise that the US and Israel have become even closer allies recently. For 9/11 has become, in purely psychological terms, akin to America’s Holocaust - an emotional scar; a potent part of the nation’s identity; and a key dynamic in its present and future paths. Yet, just as in Israel, the political climate that this has created has left many questions unanswered, or even not able to be asked, and has stunted discourse on foreign policy and patriotism. A ‘never again’ mentality has been adopted which seems to legitimise a more insular and zero-sum approach to politics, where the aims are above all to protect the interests of the State and the American people, often to the detriment of anyone else. Despite the efforts of the anti-war movement, it was only really with the emergence of Howard Dean and then John Kerry belatedly, that an alternate policy - one promoting a more multilateral worldview and consensual approach - reached the mainstream.

The final section of my pilgrimage took me to the outside (the gates, fences and other security-paraphernalia) of the three most politically hallowed sites: the Supreme Court, the Capitol Building and the White House. I had been to the latter on the eve of the election, but the “bye, bye, Bush” chants that I had heard then took on an added poignancy in my mind when I returned several days later. The election result may have shown a country divided 51:49, but all three branches of the government seem likely they will be under the increased control - or at least influence - of a highly partisan and ideological group of people.

I am particularly interested in the challenge of how to move US politics and public opinion back to the centre-ground and to a more socially liberal position. One possible game plan - inspired by Jefferson - is that Democrats / secular members of US society need to articulate their messages and politics in faith-based language, in order to be listened to and influence the mainstream (more religious) citizens. You have to be pragmatic, and somehow embrace the other, if you are to have any lasting impact on the country’s course. That is the challenge ahead.

Equally, I believe that the discourse from the campaign trail - the vociferous opposition to the US administration’s pro-corporate stance; elements of its domestic agenda; its aggressive conduct of foreign policy and its disregard for human rights and the environment - needs to continue. A number of the Americans I met on my trip were vowing to do so; and more will hopefully once they recover from the pain of defeat. That is my desire too. I may not have been confident of a Kerry victory, but I still did not spend much time envisaging a second Bush term; something I must now reluctantly accept. We must wait until 2008, if not longer, for a change of course. In the meantime, it is in our interests to help nurture effective alternatives to Republican policies and politicians; and also to support grass-roots movements in their work educating and empowering Americans. By doing so, and by remembering the importance of voting, we shall not have surrendered - no matter what happens during the next four years.

November 17, 2008 Posted by sixfifty | global perspective, lessons from America | , , , , | 1 Comment

Only in America

Coming to the end of my stash of candy hoarded from Halloween’s ‘Trick or Vote’ fun, I came across a packet of m&ms.  I was just savouring the first few, when I noticed a sticky note attached to the back of the wrapper. 

Halloween candy with a message

….. only in America.

Obviously one of the households in suburban Cincinnati which I had been canvassing that Halloween night wanted kids (or their accompanying parents) to go away thinking about higher matter than ghosts and gobstoppers.

November 17, 2008 Posted by sixfifty | Uncategorized | , , | No Comments

Accounting for the slow voting and counting

Hooray, I feel over the worst of the jet lag.  Never had it so bad, but then I don’t normally have such a crazy schedule and lack of sleep on ‘holiday’.  So after a few days of quiet from me and my blog, I’m back in business.  

And happily, this election isn’t over.  Missouri hasn’t been officially declared yet (though McCain will win it and the state’s totemic ‘bellweather’ status will shrink).  But the big news is the big 60 is still theoretically on for the Democrats in the Senate.  Al Franken and Norm Coleman are locked in an almighty battle for Minnesota’s Senate seat, with a recount virtually guaranteed given the 200-odd votes separating them.  The Alaskan Senate seat is also going the distance, but is even more remarkable; with long-time incumbent, convicted felon and race leader Ted Stevens seeing his narrow lead completely disappear and go into the negative as more votes are counted.  And there will be a run-off for the Georgia Senate seat in December, as it has finally been confirmed that Republican Saxby Chamblis did not gain 50%+ that was needed to won the seat outright.

In my many conversations with people since returning to London, it is clear that one of the things we Brits have trouble fathoming out is why the way US citizens vote and how those votes are counted is so problematic, slow and open to partisan challenges.  We get upset - and the media in frenzied fits of hysteria and pique - when the results aren’t known within a few hours; when there have been technical difficulties with voting machines and some ballot paper confusion (Scotland 2007); or when the count doesn’t start til the next day and a pleasingly high turnout makes the process take longer and carry on late into the night (London 2008). 

There are four aspects I want to comment on: (i) the voting lines on election day (ii) State differences (iii) post-election counting (iv) the continued role of parties and money.  This post will deal with the first one, and I’ll return to others later.

First up those queues.  Listening to election day coverage on the car radio on the drive up to Chicago was a surreal experience.  It was like dial-to-dial traffic reports; except it wasn’t traffic hotspots that were being broadcast, it was polling station queues and reported problems.  CNN and other major networks set up hotlines that you could call; and most of interviews throughout the day were done with people on location at some of the trouble spots.  My favourite reports came from Virginia and the Carolinas, where along with other more serious issues, they encountered problems caused by damp ballot papers jamming the machine.  Apparently, it was raining outside and drips of water were falling from voters’ faces, hands or clothing onto the ballot paper and the machines couldn’t cope. 

However, this election day voter disenfranchisement was a dog which didn’t bark - at least not as vociferously as had been expected.  There were ridicuously long lines in some places, and voters in a few areas had to wait 6-8 hours.  And that isn’t acceptable.  And there will undoubtedly have been a few places where the distribution of polling stations and voting equipment was purposely gerrymandered to unfairly disadvantage the other side - usually that means not enough resources in African-American or other high density, low income neighbourhoods.  And if there had been a close result nationwide, some of the reported problems might have received much further scrutiny. 

Yet it should be remembered there was no meltdown. As far as I am aware, no counties had to take emergency action and extend polling hours to cope, as happened in several states during the Democratic Primaries.  Part of this is attributable to the unprecedented rush for early voting (in those states that allowed it), which relieved the pressure to some extent on 4 November.  Ironically, it was often those people most worried by election day problems that had the longest queues, as they - and many of their neighbours - early voted.   Lawmakers are so impressed by the success of these early voting initiatives that there is a prediction they will encourage all states to bring in some form of it for 2012.  The other reason for the lower level of problems was probably because of all the hard work, on-the-ground organising and observing put in to making voting fairer. See ProjectVote for more.

The other factor to bear in mind, which is news to a lot of Brits, is that long voting lines doesn’t need to signify a ‘third world’ (I hate that term) democracy - at least not in a negative connation.  It doesn’t have to mean that the US is some hapless banana republic when it comes to electoral administration, though there are room for many major improvements.  Neither does it have to mean that American citizens are imbued with a civic delight and an enthusiasm to vote irrespective of the hardships of waiting in line for hours akin to those uplifting scenes in post-Apartheid South Africa.  Though this year, for this election, that actually did feel an appropriate analogy; especially looking at the faces of those who were in the queue at my polling station well before the doors opened. 

One key reason for the lines, and one we don’t realise, is just that the process of voting takes a lot longer than it does here.  It’s those lengthy ballots, voting not just for president, senator and congressman, but for local politicians, judges, sheriffs and varied other elected positions. And then often a range of statewide and local ballot initiatives (referendum) too.  Democracy takes time.  At least several more minutes per voter.  And then it is often not just a case of going in, making a couple of pencil marks, folding up the ballot paper and depositing it in a box, as we are used to.  Voters may have to scan their filled in ballot paper through the machine, ensure that is done right, then deposit the paper version in a box.  All this takes time, slows down the number of voters that can be processed through the polling station, and can easily and quickly result in queues building up.

November 14, 2008 Posted by sixfifty | counting votes | , , , | 3 Comments

Ground game gains

I haven’t yet had a chance to search for turnout figures state-by-state and to look at whether battleground states had noticeably higher turnout (or experienced a greater % increase in turnout since 2004) compared to non-competitive states.  However, what I have found is a neat post on 538 using exit polling to analyse in swing states whether the side which contacted the most voters won. 

The upshot: yes, the ground game is important and is one of the factors why Obama did so well in certain states. Of the 12 battleground states polled, in all but West Virgina more people had been contacted by the Obama campaign than the McCain campaign.  And of the 12, Obama only lost in West Virginia and Missouri (just). 

Nevada, Colorado and Indiana were all places where Obama actually did much better than polls had predicted.  These were states with by far the highest reported gap between people being contacted by Obama campaigners and McCain campaigners.  Conversely, in West Virginia and Wisconsin there was the smallest margin between voter contacts and Obama did less well there than polls would have suggested.

Nate offers some good interpretations of the data:

“Wisconsin was also relatively close, perhaps because Obama redirected its legion number of Illinois-based volunteers from Wisconsin to Indiana a couple of weeks in advance of the election.”

“Although Obama’s field operation was good, Kerry’s was pretty good too; the difference [this eledtion] may be that while Bush’s field operation was also good, John McCain’s was not.”

“It is possible that Obama’s field operation was more efficient than Kerry’s, as the contact rate gap was larger in battleground than in non-battleground states. I have heard multiple stories of voters in states like Indiana receiving as many as three or four in-person contacts from the Obama campaign on Tuesday. This is a sign of a campaign that knew where the tipping points were, rather than (say) sending volunteers to Michigan on Election Day just to play it safe.”

So putting resources into local organising and gotv activities does work.  But Nate’s final point also shows the limits of a 50 State Strategy when push-comes-to-shove in the closing days of a campaign. The choices still have to be made and under a winner-takes-all system it mitigates against pushing for every last vote in places you are likely to win anyway.

One additional comment from Nate worth mentioning, as it helps explain why Democrats (and the same could be said of the Labour Party) need to work extra hard each election on gotv efforts: 

“Democrats are in fact relying upon lower-propensity voters like youth and minorities. Therefore, it is more incumbent upon the Democrats to have a strong ground game to turn these voters out.”

November 10, 2008 Posted by sixfifty | 50 State strategy | , | No Comments

Nebraska a major headache for networks

Once again - as on so many occasions this election cycle - the blogosphere and the number-crunching experts on sites like 538, DailyKos, electoral-vote et al are way ahead of the game.  And the TV networks and even 24/7 news channels like CNN are failing to either be accurate or informative.  What is the cause of this?  It is Obama winning one of Nebraska’s 5 electoral college votes - an event which joins the long list of records broken this year.  

As electoral-vote explains:

“Nebraska is one of the two states (along with Maine) that awards one electoral vote for each congressional district carried plus two for the statewide winner. It now appears that Obama won NE-02 (Omaha) and picks up another electoral vote. This is the first time in history that either state has split its EVs.”

CNN and other major news networks just can’t cope with this fact and don’t - at least as yet - show it on their maps.  And there has been very little mainsteam discussion of even the possibility of it happening, as far as I can tell.  Where as Nate, Kos and others (including me!) have been talking about it for a while and following the vote count in Nebraska closely.

Proving the rule that incumbents when they keep winning under a system don’t want to change it and then look like sore losers when they immediately reverse their position upon losing (even just one electoral vote),

“Nebraska Republicans have reacted to this development with dismay and intend to introduce legislation in 2009 to go to a winner-take-all system like 48 other states. Although technically the (unicameral) legislature is nonpartisan, de facto, the Republicans control it and also the governor’s mansion, so they will probably succeed.”

And going back to one of my favourite subjects, reforming the electoral college, electoral-vote.com some great analysis of how Nebraska may prove a fillip to the national popular vote movement: 

“An indirect effect of Obama winning the electoral vote is to provide a solid precedent for allowing a state to allocate its electoral votes as its state legislature determines by state law. This issue could come up again if the Interstate Compact is adopted by states with 270 electoral votes. If this happens, then those states will cast all their electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote (not the state popular vote), de facto eliminating the electoral college without a constitutional amendment. Currently four states (Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey) have passed it. If another dozen or so blue states were to pass it, it would come into being and there would surely be court fights about the right of a state legislature to determine how its electoral votes were cast (even though the constitution is pretty clear it is up to the states to choose their electors as they wish). Having a precedent for something other than winner-take-all would strengthen that court case.”

November 10, 2008 Posted by sixfifty | systems | , , , , | 1 Comment

Political pilgrimage

Yesterday in DC was very much a political pilgrimage, walking to the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument, the White House and along the Mall to Capitol Hill.  A lot of walking (DC is such a great city to explore on foot) and to time to reflect, and to see people’s reactions to these hallowed sites in the light of Obama’s victory.  I’ll write more on that shortly.  And finally today, the pilgrimage ended on a cultural note: going to an art gallery and seeing one of the original, iconic Shepherd Fairley Obama ‘Hope’ pictures.  

While I was doing that (and attending a Green Festival here in DC earlier today), Meghan was at a Sheffield film festival doing a workshop in which she showed ten minutes worth of clips from the many tapes she shot in Ohio and Chicago.  I look forward to hearing how that went and what people’s reactions were. 

Shortly, I will board a plane back to London: back to cold, grey weather; back to work; back to a post-election life.  But there is plenty I still need to write up from this trip - both diary entries and more analytical pieces too.  So stay tuned. The journey is not yet complete.

November 8, 2008 Posted by sixfifty | Uncategorized | | No Comments

Buying a piece of history

The [unofficial] merchandise sellers were in full force in the streets surrounding Grant Park. And I picked up some great stuff: Obama beanies (hats), a big button with Obama’s image and the words ‘thank you’ on it; another which simply says “yes we did”.  But this was all tame compared to the scenes the following day.  Everyone wanted to get their hands on the special editions of the Chicago newspapers - the Tribune and the Sun Times.  All the newstands and stores had long since sold out by the time I got up.  And I wasn’t the only one scanning every sidewalk and metro carriage for one. 

The Tribune rose to the occasion though.  They started churning out extra copies and distributing them across the city.  The trouble was, as soon as a delivery arrived they were instantly snapped up.  A van was arriving every 30mins or so straight from the printing presses to the Tribune HQ in downtown Chicago.  I joined the queues outside the building waiting patiently to get their copy.  Some people were just buying a couple; others more for friends and family; and budding entrepreneurs were buying up bundles of 20 to sell on the streets for many times the cost price.  In the end I bought 5 copies, plus a few souvenir posters as well.

Update:  As I passed through Baltimore Airport to fly back to London, I noticed the newsagents there were still selling copies of Wednesday’s election special edition of the Washington Post.  Needless to say, I purchased a copy; along with the Newsweek and Time magazine specials.  Those two magazines embed reporters with each candidate and every four years, immediately after the election, produce a wonderfully rich and insider account of the each of the campaigns.  Worth getting hold of a copy, especially Newsweek.

November 8, 2008 Posted by sixfifty | Uncategorized | | No Comments

The winning moment

Despite my love of blogging, I realise there are some occasions when I just want to put away the camera, put down the notepad or laptop, and just be in a moment; focused on it and myself; not on how to report it or capture it for posterity.  For me, one such moment was 10pm CST: when CNN called the election for Obama. 

As the clocked neared the top of the hour, I knew that that victory moment was approaching.  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virgina and Colorado had all been won by Obama.  There was no longer any possible route to 270 for McCain.  And with California’s megaload of electoral college votes about to be added to the Obama tally as soon as the polls closed, along with Washington and most likely Oregan too, Obama was easily about to pass the winning post.  I was excited and eagerly anticipating the official call and the celebrations that would follow.

And sure enough, at 10pm CST the announcement was made and the crowd all around me went wild: cheering, jumping, screaming, arms raised, waving flags and placards, hugging, celebrating.   It was like a huge tidal wave of elation sweeping across the park.   And for the first 30 seconds or so, I was part of that; wildly celebrating with the rest of the crowd. 

And then the emotion really hit.  The realisation of a dream fulfilled; a journey completed; witnessing a historic moment; putting this day in the context of the civil rights movement and the stretch of American history that began with slavery.  I stopped being part of the crowd and for a while it just seemed like me and the video screen, that was all that I noticed.  It was akin to being in a state of shock, knowing that something big had just happened, but unable to react to or be in the world around.

The tears welled up.  I can’t recall if I actually cried, but I was close.  I just stood there trying to absorb even a little of the enormity of what had just been achieved and how much it meant to me.  Eventually though I snapped out of it and went back to wildly cheering with the rest of the crowd.  And then a little later dancing as the campaign song ’signed, sealed and delivered’ started up over the speakers.

I let myself experience the moment and not try and capture it on my camera - hence the lack of photos or sound for me to put up on this site.  However, Meghan didn’t have that luxury / choice.  It was imperative for her to be filming (me).  Hence there should be some interesting footage on the documentary she is putting together.  I look forward to actually seeing my reactions to the victory call.  Though it will be weird, as I already have in my mind a picture of that scene and that moment.

November 8, 2008 Posted by sixfifty | Uncategorized | | 2 Comments

The Obama victory celebrations in Chicago

I was there: albeit at the edge of the Grant Park, Chicago, celebrations.  Couldn’t wish for anymore, given we didn’t have tickets to the main section and also had driven for 6+ hours from Cincinnati that afternoon and only arrived at the park after 9pm, having made stops at the different sets of friends we were staying with.

We parked ourselves fairly close to a jumbo screen on one edge of the park, so we could easily watch the results and Obama’s speech.  Here is the first few minutes of Obama’s victory speech.  Stirring stuff.  

And here are a selection of photos from that night: mainly taken inside the park watching as history unfolded around us.  It was amazing to be part of it; eventhough tiredness and gaining an extra hour in the time change from Cincinnati left us without the energy to continue celebrating in the streets all night. 







November 8, 2008 Posted by sixfifty | Uncategorized | | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries