Finally, the trailer for Star Trek is officially released online:

Words can’t describe how happy I am that these characters will live and breath again. Even with different actors, the 12 year-old boy in me that watched all-day Star Trek marathons is delighted to be getting Gene Roddenberry’s universe back.

Joe Lieberman really regrets that he said some things on television about Barack Obama being a socialist and friend to terrorists.  Some things, of course, were taken out of context, and other things were said less than artfully. And absolutely no harm was meant to the Democratic nominee. It was all one big misunderstanding that he questioned Obama’s patriotism at the RNC and stood behind McCain until the very end.

The Senate Democrats in a show of “unity” decided to keep the Republican Senator from Connecticut in their caucus.  Maybe it speaks of Democratic magnamity or goodness or something, but I’d never imagine the Republicans keeping such a shameless turncoat in their own caucus, much less allow them to retain their coveted Homeland Security chairmanship. Lieberman hasn’t been a Democrat since at least the 2000 election when he sold out the Gore team’s efforts to get a recount in Florida. I could list a thousand things the man has done or said that have hurt the progressive cause over the years, but that’s beside the point.

I have no problem with Obama making nice with McCain or Clinton — they were political adversaries, and they were competing for the same office. But when Lieberman was challenged by Ned Lamont in Connecticut, Obama supported Lieberman and campaigned on his behalf — a fact not lost on many in the netroots who loathe Lieberman. He put his name and reputation on the line to back Lieberman, who then turned around and slandered him in the press. Supporting McCain is fine, but he pushed the worst of the smears and does not deserve a pass for it.

You can watch the pathetic makeup session here:

I wasn’t initially going to pick up Gears of War 2 for XBOX 360 — although I enjoyed the original game, I was generally underwhelmed by its repetitive and predictable gameplay. But with reviews for Resistance 2 on PS3 on the underwhelming side and a strong distrust of developer Treyarch who made this year’s odd-numbered Call of Duty: World at War, I was left with Gears 2 as my last best option for a fall shooter.  

And I have to say, I’m glad I picked it.  Gears 2 is a great improvement over the original, and offers up some expansive battles, large scale monsters, and even a platforming level to balance out the methodical and tactical “stop-and-pop” style of gameplay.  The story actually uses the interesting backstory that was all but neglected in the original (save for some mentions in the art book that came with the special edition).  We’re now getting an idea of who the Locusts are, and why they’re at war with the humans.

In terms of storytelling, they’ve taken a page from the Metal Gear Solid 4 playbook and added in some cinematic cut scenes — none of them clock at more than a minute, but they work a lot better in engaging the player with the story and world of Gears than the original did.  There’s one in particularly featuring a fight between two new characters and a new boss monster that was pretty awesome, and reminded me of an abbreviated version of the grand Raiden vs. Gecko cutscene in Metal Gear.

Online, Gears 2 is as much of a cesspool as the original.  I’ve played in two ranked multiplayer matches thus far, and besides getting my ass handed to me, I also had to suffer through the usual abuse from the teenagers and unemployed twenty-something boys who inhabit XBOX Live.  It’s too bad that they didn’t include the varied and useful mute options that came with Halo 3, as I don’t enjoy having a boy 15 years my junior inviting me to personally suck on his balls.  I suspect if we met in real life, that was an invitation I would not have received.  Still, Gears has a party system borrowed from Halo and Call of Duty that allows you to team up with a group of four other friends to bounce from game to game without worrying about servers like you do on PC.  This is a big improvement over the original, which took a stripped-down PC approach featuring server lists — with Gears 2 you can count on playing with a different group of abusive teens every round, rather than suffering through endless rounds of abuse from the same group of kids.

Still, Epic smartly included a private botmatch feature where you can substitute AI bots for human players on any adversarial multiplayer game mode in Gears 2.  Now I can enjoy Gears in peace in the company of non-sentient opponents.  What’s better is that you and your friends can cooperatively take on said non-sentient opponents together and you can even earn the achievements previously exclusive to the online rump-raping hordes.

Besides offering campaign coop (now an essential feature of any first or third person shooter) which allows you to play through the single player game with a friend in the role of hero Marcus Fenix’s best buddy and bromance crush, Dominic Santiago, Gears 2 also has adapted Rainbow Six’s popular but underwhelming Terrorist Hunt coop mode into the Gears universe.  Called “Horde,” you and a team of up to five players are tasked with fighting 50 waves of increasingly challenging Locusts on the game’s multiplayer maps.  Unlike Terrorist Hunt in Rainbow Six, though, the AI bots in Horde are just as smart as their single player counterparts, and teamwork and communication is essential if you and your friends are going to survive.  Saturday night, a group of us played through 18 waves and had a blast.  Horde mode is possibly the most compelling reason to play Gears of War 2, but don’t even try it by yourself.  You’ll get crushed in seconds.  Fans of World of Warcraft raids will understand how addictive this type of game can be.

All and all, Gears of War 2 is a great package and well worth your money.  I suppose someday I’ll get back to Fallout 3, but for now, I’m having a blast.

As Chris brings up in the comments, Hillary Clinton’s name has been floated as a possible candidate for Secretary of State.

There’s two competing theories at the moment.  First, that it’s true — Obama is taking a page out of the Abraham Lincoln “Team of Rivals” approach and considering nominating his greatest rival in the Democratic party to a significant cabinet post.

Conversely, there’s a school of thought being promoted by Al Giordano and others that this is all just a ruse by the Clinton people to embarrass Obama and prevent the nominations of either John Kerry or Bill Richardson to the post, as the Clinton’s view Kerry and Richardson as traitors for backing Obama.  Al makes his case here.

I’m personally in the “Team of Rivals” camp — I think nominating HRC to the position of Secretary of State would be a huge gesture of party unity, and a sign that Obama is confident enough in himself that he would appoint one of his political adversaries to his cabinet.  I think Hillary Clinton would make a fine Secretary of State, and I would much rather see her in that role than Kerry or Richardson.  It would also give the Clinton’s a vested interested in the success of an Obama administration and would reward her for putting her differences aside and campaigning for him relentlessly during the general election campaign.  A win all around in my book.

But I never hated Hillary Clinton — I just didn’t want her to be President of the United States.  A lot of other Obama supporters are still bitter, which is why they’re pushing this HRC as Machiavelli myth.  If HRC was Machiavelli, she’d be the President-Elect right now.  She’s not.  Which leads me to believe that she probably is a serious contender for Secretary of State.

I’ve been wrong before, though, so who knows if I’m right about this.  Three months from now it could be Chuck Hagel — but right now, I’m hoping this is true.  If it is, it would be a great move and a grand political gesture that helps prove Obama’s argument that he is a concillatory figure.  We’ll see.

Someone needs to tell the bloggers, the mainstream media and Sarah Palin herself that the election is over and it’s time for her to go home.

Seriously, I am so sick of hearing about her. It reminds me of when I was seventeen years old and played a popular supporting role in the school play. After the play was over, I expected my temporary and unexpected celebrity to continue. It didn’t.

Playing to a political base isn’t enough to win elections. It didn’t work for Bob Dole, it didn’t work for John McCain and it certainly didn’t work for Sarah Palin. Beloved by conservatives, the exit polls following the election showed that Palin was pretty much reviled by just about everyone else. And yet here she is at the Republican Governor’s meeting talking about Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder just like it was still November 3.

If Palin wants another shot, she needs to go back to Alaska, read up on foreign and domestic policy, and come back in four years to show that she’s a radically different candidate. If she doesn’t, then her fifteen minutes are over. There’s no way that Palin as currently defined can win the center.

But hey, at least Camille Paglia still loves her, right?

I’m actually pretty pleased by Obama’s pick of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. He knows Washington well, he’s tough and independent-minded, and he’s not unwilling to disagree with the President. It’s a testimony to Obama’s ego that he didn’t pick a potential yes-man, such as Tom Daschle. There’s no question that Rahm Emanuel says what he thinks. Also, Emanuel’s close ties to Israel also put to rest the argument that Obama is weak on Middle East issues. Another win. Emanuel is a partisan, but he’s a realist, and from what I’ve read, he has the respect of some on the other side of the aisle.

As for Treasury Secretary, I think Larry Summers would be a huge mistake. He was a bone-headed, tin-eared Harvard President. My preference is for Tim Geithner, who seems a fresher, less controversial figure.

Washington, D.C. is a different city this morning, and America is a different country. I am breathless, and there is a part of me that still doesn’t believe it. We won. Barack Obama is the next President of the United States.

A year ago, I was a lukewarm Hillary Clinton supporter. I liked Obama, his temperament, his intellect, his ideals and integrity. But I was skeptical he could win. As Iowa approached, I was virtually uncommitted, but after his resounding victory, I went all in for him. Iowa proved to me and a lot of other people that he could do it. Last night’s election was proof that we were right.

I was nervous all night, sick to my stomach with anxiety. When Pennsylvania was called, I felt a sudden flood of hope — McCain and Palin worked hard to turn the state, but Obama won it handily. After that, it was nothing but good news, an electoral map expanded past the Kerry states into traditional red states. Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Indiana. It’s still hard to believe.

I cycled between all the cable networks, switched to the Call of Duty: World at War beta, and then back to the election.

And suddenly, perhaps surprisingly, the networks called the election for Obama. The city around me was silent, as if my fellow Washingtonians couldn’t believe what had happened, either. And then scattered cheers, horns honking, fireworks could be heard. The sound grew and grew until around 11pm there was a flood of people heading down 16th St past my apartment — white, black, hispanic, young and old. Celebrating, cheering, dancing, hugging. Complete strangers hugging and shaking hands and high-fiving. Terrorist fist bumps.

The revelers took over U Street, some climbed on to of the bus stops and danced on the overhangs. Further down 16th, thousands filled Lafayette Park at the gates to the White House, cheering and waving signs.

Later, McCain offered his stirring and heroic concession speech. For a moment, I forgot about past three months and remembered the great man I backed in 2000. Here he was, ringing in the arrival of Barack Obama with grace and dignity.

And then Obama’s acceptance speech. In my mind there were two great Presidents of the 20th Century, idealogical mirror images — Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. One a champion of liberalism, the other conservatism, they shared the ability to rally the nation in a time of crisis and bring us together as one people. While Bush was President of the Republican Party, Roosevelt and Reagan were both President to the nation. Obama’s call for civility, for reconciliation, for working together fits the mold of those two men. Who knows if he can be successful, but the chance is there.

This morning, my co-workers and I stood in the hallway, still somewhat dumbfounded that we pulled it off. Everyone tearing up with emotion, sharing a common bond.

As much as this election means to rank and file Democrats, who felt alienated from the government and unrepresented for the better part of eight years, the significance of Obama’s win has greater value to African Americans.

Just 40 years ago, African Americans could not attend the same schools as whites, couldn’t eat in the same restaurants, ride in the same part of the bus, or work the same jobs. Even with civil rights victories, there was a belief among many African Americans that this country was not their’s. That they weren’t really Americans, that they would never have full citizenship.

And yet this morning, Barack Obama will be the next President. The message to black children across the country is clear — you can do anything. America is yours, too.

Immigrants from countries around the world can look at their child, male or female, and say: You could some day be President. America is yours, too.

Today at work one of my friends, a conservative, came up to me and said: “You should thank me.”

For a moment I was confused.

“It was a hard decision,” he said, “but I voted for Obama.”

I immediately shook his hand and thanked him, because I knew how difficult it was for him. The two of us had discussed the election frequently, and I listened to his concerns, trying to offer my side of things without giving him the hard sell. I don’t believe in being an evangelist, of forcing my views on others. All I can do is give them my side, and let them decide if that changes their mind.

He told me the struggle he and his wife had making up their minds about who to vote for, how they were concerned that Obama’s policies might make it so she lost her job. “But at the end of the day, I had to do it for my son,” he said.

His wife is Brazilian. At first I didn’t understand what he meant, but then it hit me. I understood.

It’s a brand new day. For the first time in a long time, I believe anything is truly possible — that the Bush years can be erased, that America can be great again. It may not happen, but I know it can.

Today the world knows that a majority of Americans — the biggest majority since Reagan — have elected Barack Hussein Obama as their next President. We’re not the country they thought we were — the racist, warmongering brutes that the hypocrites in Europe stereotyped us as. They would never think to elect someone from the working class, let alone a lower middle class man of mixed African and European descent. We are the greatest country on earth, and any American can be President. No other country on the planet can claim the same.

Sorry this is so disjointed. I have so much to say, but no way to express it all.

I am naturally superstitious, so I will make no brash declarations of victory, like many of my friends.  I believe this could be a close race, and people on both sides will be biting their nails for awhile.

I hope for a win, but I am prepared for the worst.  Polls are one thing, but the vote is the real thing.

We’ll see if the polls were right within a few hours.

Esquire goes to white and black nationalists to see who they’re supporting for President. Call it the “hate” vote. Oddly enough, several of the white racists are supporting Obama, but not for reasons I can necessarily comprehend.

This is the last post I will write this cycle that addresses the two critical arguments of the McCain campaign — Ayers/Acorn/Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s alleged socialism. I am sick of discussing these two topics, and as the polls indicate, so is the majority of the electorate.

Guilt by association was the cornerstone of McCarthyism. Americans were blacklisted and ruined because they were related to, friends with, or themselves had attended meetings hosted by members of the communist party. The core argument of Senator McCarthy was that any American who associated with communists was a traitor and anti-American. This is the same argument McCain is making about Obama.

Obama is his own man — he is not an extension of William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright. He should be judged by his own actions and his own words. He has repudiated Ayers and the Weathermen, and he very publicly condemned Jeremiah Wright’s words and actions during the primary. Unless you have actual evidence of Obama supporting the views of either individual, then you have to take him at his word. By ignoring what Obama himself says and continuing to push for “answers about the full extent of his association,” the McCain campaign and their supporters are turning into a broken record. The charges have been answered and dispelled — Obama does not endorse the views of Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright. There’s no evidence in any of his speeches, writings or interviews to suggest that he does.

I have much closer associations with family members who have committed crimes or been incarcerated than Obama has with Bill Ayers. Should I be held accountable for every action of every person I’ve ever been friends with or related to? Get a fucking grip. By that standard, few of us would pass the association test. Not even John McCain.

If that’s not enough for Obama’s detractors, then there’s nothing that can be said to sway them. It’s a circular argument that loops back to the same starting point. Either you believe it matters or it doesn’t. I think it’s unfair and unjust to hold one man accountable for the actions of another man. Nothing anyone says will sway me on this.

As for charges of socialism — again, get a grip on reality. Socialism is the massive redistribution of wealth and taxing of society similar to what’s done in Europe. Obama has called for raising taxes on the top 1% by a few points and lowering taxes for people who make under $250,000 by a few points, not turning the progressive American tax structure into a European tax structure. To listen to McCain, you’d think Obama was Karl Marx, arguing for the destruction of American capitalism in favor of some European welfare state utopia.

Do these people honestly think the Democrats would be stupid enough to turn the U.S. into a socialist state? Do you think Bill Clinton and the New Democrats never happened? Come on, look at the historical record. The last president to expand government and increase entitlements was George W. Bush, aided and abetted by a Republican-controlled congress. Bill Clinton cut government and shrunk entitlements. Obama’s campaign promises are relatively mild compared to Clinton’s stab at socialized medicine. Again, there’s nothing I can do to sway Republican hardliners on this — no amount of evidence to the contrary will disprove the fantasy that Democrats are secret communists engaged in a conspiracy to undermine American capitalism. If you believe this, I can’t change your mind.

If you want to talk socialism, then why not look at Bush and his Treasury Department and their redistribution of $700 billion of taxpayer money to Wall Street? Democrats (including Obama) supported that bill, but it originated on the request of Bush and his “conservatives” allies, including John McCain. All of Washington is responsible for that one, but it was spearheaded by a Republican president. If that’s socialism, then both parties are advocates of socialism.

The fact is, McCain has no plan for the country, no policy prescriptions for the problems that ail us. All he has is guilt by association and charges of socialism. Just like John Kerry in the last cycle, he has no positive agenda for the country — the only argument for McCain is that he is not Barack Obama, just like the only argument for Kerry was the he was not George W. Bush. Historically, candidates who cannot articulate what they are for do not win.

The Republican talking points and attack ads have lost their meaning — the public has heard these arguments made for fifty years. After a while words lose their punch, turning them into a cliche’, a joke. Play the McCain/Palin drinking game and take a drink whenever the words “Ayers,” “terrorist” and “socialist” are brought up. You’ll be a good and drunk in a matter of minutes. Once your arguments turn into a drinking game, it’s over. They’ve failed.

But this does not mean that McCain still can’t win the presidency — he can. But luck and race, I suspect, will be the two deciding factors.

I have closed this post to comments, because I am sick of this fruitless argument. We’ll all just have to agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that.

This will also be my last political post until election day. Fallout 3 comes out today, and I have supermutants to kill and post-apocalyptic Washington, D.C. to explore. You might say I need to prepare myself for life after a possible McCain/Palin administration.