Many politicians weren't paying attention

We've just come off of an election season in which the victors were those who encouraged hope.  They spoke of the future, of what is possible.  They tempted voters with what it might be like to live in an America in which politicians did more than just bicker like 4-year-olds.  They spoke of working together with all belief systems, with all philosophies to form that more perfect Union.  One candidate even spoke of our Union not being red and blue states, but the United States.

So who won?  It was those folks.  What seemed improbable became a reality.  When people are hopeful, when people are inspired, when people feel they are part of something - they act.

It strikes me that it seems many in Washington haven't learned a thing from this past election cycle.  Or if they did, they didn't pick up on the important pieces.

On January 30, the Republican National Committee elected Michael Steele their new Chairman.  Their first-ever African-American leader.  It's a wonderful thing to see some minority leadership in the Republican party; I praise them for this.  It is wonderful to see Americans from all walks of life be embraced.  However, I think it's the only thing Republicans learned from the last election.

All that stuff about working together and moving forward as one nation - I think they missed that.  

Here is a comment from Chairman Steele during his acceptance speech:  "We're going to say to friend and foe alike, we want you to be a part of us, and to those of you will will obstruct, get ready to get knocked over."

Yes, I can see how that is inviting and hope inspiring?  It's reminiscent of a certain someone who said, "you're either with us or against us."  We saw  how well that sentiment worked.

Now I would add that there are many democrats would also didn't get the message of unity.  Our own leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, are perhaps hurting more than helping the President these days.  These politicians who have been in Washington forever (on both sides of the aisle) that seem so out of touch with real Americans are going to be the biggest road block for President Obama.

So, to Chairman Steele, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Reid - we don't want fighting, we don't want bull-headed, irrational arguments.  We want action.  We want progress for the United States.  Please put aside your personal desires for power and get something accomplished.  The past election was won on a theme of unity and hope.  Found out what that means.

A tradition we can be proud of

It seems for a political blogger to ignore the events of the past week would be just wrong, so I won't.

Although possible, it would be difficult to find a person in the world that isn't aware that the United Stated inaugurated its first African American president last Tuesday.  This was an amazing day for a country steeped in a history of black oppression and I'm certain the collective tears shed by a nation on that day could quench the droughts of many dry lands.  The personal stories of so many who never thought they would see such a day continue to be shared and continue to both inspire and humble.  For the skeptics who claim change won't be easy to come by, I say that while we as a nation face many obstacles - the change has already started.

The election of our first African American president certainly marks 2008 as historically significant and gives us all a reason to reflect.  In addition to this, there was something else that continually gave me pause on inauguration day.  We are a young nation and thus comparatively have few traditions that define our culture.  However, we do have, every 4 or 8 years, a peaceful transition of power that demonstrates the strength and integrity of our democracy.

I found myself becoming increasingly patriotic as Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer shared nuggets of information about the traditions and protocol that accompany the event.  Actions timed down to the minute that have been occurring on this day for well over 200 years.  Something as small as the President sitting on the right of the President-elect as they make their way to the Capital for the inauguration seems such a small detail, but is so significant to the tradition of the transition.

There are no bullets fired, no riots launched.  Partisan politics are put aside for a day as we, as a nation, illustrate to the world and to ourselves the conviction of our democracy.  It might even be said that inauguration day, a peaceful transition of power, is a democracy's finest day.

In a time when our country seems to be facing a mountain of obstacles, I invite you to take a moment to reflect on this peaceful tradition that we can be incredibly proud of.

America will once again embrace science!

CNN Political Analyst, David Gergen, can always be counted on to deliver an honest, eloquent, and accurate commentary on current events.  This recent commentary by Mr. Gergen is eye-opening and lays out the striking difference between the Bush administration and the Obama administration on the importance and validity of science.  We can breath a sigh of relief that we will once again have a government that supports and embraces science.  Let's hope it's not too late.

Mr. Gergen writes:

In coming months, public attention will heavily focus on the performance of Barack Obama’s economic and national security teams, but over the long haul, his new team in science and technology could do even more to shape the country’s future. They will arrive not a moment too soon.

Over the past seven plus years, many leaders in the science and technology community feel they have been in a virtual war with the Bush administration. They despaired, as one told me this weekend, that “no one was ever home” and that the Bush team was so dismissive of key scientific research that it threatened our future.

In a brief capsule, here are some of their key complaints:.

• The President and the men around him have been so ideologically opposed to the idea of man-made global warming that they first put their heads in the sand, refusing to accept evidence and editing reports from scientists inside the government such as the EPA, sending morale down the tubes. More recently, President Bush has acknowledged that man has contributed to warming, but the U.S. continues to drag its feet in international negotiations and Bush has resisted mandatory emission standards.
  
• Top scientific leaders in the administration have sometimes been silenced, including a top NASA climate scientist James Hansen and former Surgeon General Richard Carmona. A number of government scientists have resigned.
  
• The President twice vetoed bills for stem cell research over the objections of many in the scientific community as well as Bill Frist, the cardio-surgeon who was a GOP leader in the Senate.
  
• The President allowed funding for the National Science Foundation to go essentially flat and after sizable increases, also allowed a flattening of the budget for the National Institutes of Health.
  
• The President did sign onto the competitiveness agenda proposed by a special commission of the national academies of science and engineering – and he helped to secure Congressional passage of legislation endorsing the agenda. But, stunningly, the Congress refused to fund it – and the President put up very little fight.
  
• This November, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science publicly lambasted the administration for putting unqualified political appointees into permanent civil service jobs that make scientific policy decisions. A case in point: Todd Harding, a 30-year old with a bachelor’s degree from Kentucky’s Centre College, was named to a permanent post at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration working on space-spaced science for geostationary and meteorological data.
  
• Even as some positions were filled with non-entities, the White House left vacant the post of Executive Director for the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
  

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that the scientific community began rallying to Barack Obama months ago. Periodically, Dr. Harold Varmus, now chief of Memorial Sloan Kettering, convened informal conference calls among leading scientists to provide counsel to the Obama campaign, and they also met with Obama for a morning of conversation in Pennsylvania.

This past Saturday, Obama began filling out his appointments to his science and technology team, and it is a star-studded cast, promising a sharp break with the Bush administration. Among those who will be surrounding him are a physicist who has won a Nobel Prize (Steven Chu), a physicist and top expert on global warming who will be his top science adviser in the White House (John Holdren), a chemical engineer who has won acclaim for as an environmental leader in New Jersey (Lisa Jackson), a marine biologist is a leading expert on the impact of global warming on the oceans (Jane Lubchenco),. a polymath who heads up one of the most important genome projects in the country (Eric Lander), and a biologist who won a Nobel prize in medicine (Varmus). It doesn’t get any better than that!

For at least half a century, America has been the world’s premier nation for scientific and technological research. Remaining at the cutting edge is not only important for the advancement of knowledge, but it is also critical – absolutely critical — for the creation of high-powered jobs and meeting the challenges of global warming. In his Internet address on Saturday, Obama said, “It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology.” He’s right – it is none too soon to call off the war and build a strong, new alliance between government and science.

Not a policy issue, a human issue

No one is perfect.  It seems that when you might think someone is perfect, there always comes a time when you realize that in fact he or she is just like everyone else: not perfect.

This recent revelation has shown itself to me in President-Elect Obama.  It happened yesterday as he was addressing questions related to the selection of Pastor Rick Warren as the person to give the invocation at the inauguration.  

I should point out that it was not the sheer fact that Pastor Warren was chosen that elicited this revelation.  While I certainly was a little disappointed because I do not believe that a person who holds Pastor Warren's beliefs does anything to unite people, but rather divides more starkly than most.  I was disappointed because Pastor Warren was one of the biggest proponents of Proposition 8 in California and likens gay relationships to that of incest and polygamy - to men, this is not someone who should be celebrated by a campaign largely guided on the message of unity.  However, I didn't think his selection was the end of the world and in some regards I think I do understand what the President-Elect might be trying to do with this decision.

My disappointment came yesterday as President-Elect Obama said, in relation to gay rights, that, "we can disagree on policy issues." 

This is when I realized that he doesn't get it, just as so many people don't get it.  There is still this notion that there is something to disagree with in terms of what or who people are.  Imagine if Pastor Warren would have replaced the word "gay" in his hate-filled statements with "black."  Hard to believe?  Well, it wasn't that long ago that statements like that were made and if they were said today - they would not be accepted.

So, I come back to what I've been saying lately.  At the heart of this isn't a policy issue - it's a human issue.  The debate must move away from whether homosexuality is right or wrong.  This isn't something people choose, this isn't something people can change.  It shouldn't be open for debate as there is nothing we can do about it!  Once the conversation moves from this "right or wrong"/"agree or disagree" nonsense, perhaps some progress can be made.  Once people realize that gay individuals are humans who love, perhaps we can put aside the unproductive and hateful rhetoric that gets us nothing but division.

I want to clarify that I do think President-Elect Obama will do many good things on behalf of the GLBT people in America.  In the same press conference he said that he is a "fierce advocate" for equality.  I do believe this and I think that he understands he must choose his words carefully in these times of extreme division that are created by Rick Warren and the like.  Mr. Obama is such a rational person that it's hard to believe he doesn't support same-sex marriage; rational people understand that it is indeed the right thing to do and the world will not come to an end.  But he's clearly aware that he would not have been elected if he would have said that.

So, is President-Elect Obama perfect?  Of course not, and he would be the first to admit it.  Does he really understand what is at the heart of this issue and why it stings us gays so much to hear a debate on our rights?  It's hard to say, but his words, and the words of many others, appear to show that he and they do not.

I'm glad that the dialogue about this choice of Pastor Warren remains in the media days after its announcement.  While I may not be as outraged as others, I think it is important that everyone understand why people are so upset.  For me it is as simple as this:  People who hold and express divisive, hateful views should not be rewarded.

A New Day

The people have spoken; better days filled with hope are ahead. My mind is spinning out of control today. I'm consumed with so many thoughts and emotions. As I stood in line to vote yesterday I was overcome with emotion and a sense of pride in my country. Often during that hour and a half that I stood in line, tears filled my eyes as I thought about what was at stake. The people of America had a duty yesterday, a duty to voice their opinion on what direction they wanted the future of America to go.

While the polls were certainly favoring Sen. Obama, I was fairly nervous as the outcome of elections lay in the hands of the voters and there were so many extraneous variables - all I could do was wait.

It's safe to say that everyone in the world is now aware that Barack Obama is President-elect of the United States of America.

As a democrat, obviously this is good news to me. As I watched the remarkable scene from Chicago last night I, as a minor addict, was browsing the statuses of fellow Facebook users. Several were statements of joy and excitement, many reflected the historic nature of the event and huge step forward that America had taken. We were all waiting for the President-elect to take the stage and set the tone for tomorrow.

My almost euphoric state began to diminish as I continued to read the Facebook statuses. Several were hateful, unfounded, and just unhappy statements about what had just taken place. I was reminded that this isn't a united country and while this election was an incredible step in the right direction, there is still so much work to do - difficult work.

A lot of concern seems to be around this idea that Sen. Obama, I suppose I can now refer to him as President-elect Obama, is this extreme liberal who is going to destroy the country. Without getting into too much policy discussion, I would have to disagree. Research suggests time and time again that democrats are much better in restoring a thriving economy, an economy that works for all Americans. It seems to me that this emphasis that people are placing on taxes is unwarranted. Obama's tax policy will essentially take us back to the tax rates of the Clinton years. I would argue that during that time no one went bankrupt from their tax rate. Do people really think that Obama's goal is to tax people to the point of having nothing? This view seems to be just as extreme as they view Obama to be.

The older I get the more I realize that extremes don't get much accomplished. All extreme views do is divide and I would say that the country doesn't need to be any further divided than it has already become. I would like to live in an America in which all people are taken care of, no one is left behind - an America that embraces people of all walks of life. We aren't there yet - but the day is coming.

Sen. Obama began last night, "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."

"It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America." This is the America I hope we can all strive for.

The most important passage from Obama's speech is one that I hope is repeated. It reads, "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too."

We have to join as one, there is perhaps not been a period in my lifetime when unity is more important. Our ideas and philosophies may never be all the same, but it is time that we put aside our personal pride, start a civil discussion, and get things moving in a positive direction for all Americans.

Our country is changing, and I might add changing rapidly. It is up to us to make sure that the change is in the right direction - the direction that was set forth by our found fathers. That all people are created equal and desire the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is our duty, as Americans, to work for a more perfect Union. We aren't there yet, but yesterday proved to me that this a pretty darn cool place.

Stuck

I love this country. That's right, Michele Bachmann, I'm a democrat and I love this country. This country affords anyone who is willing to face circumstantial barriers, an opportunity to live up to their God-given potential. In this country we are allowed to freely voice our opinion, even at the expense of others (which is often the case). Because this country allows me the right to speak freely, I'm going to do so.

I'm stuck today. I can usually let the ridiculous things people say roll off my back and I go about my day getting done what I need to. My thoughts are generally not consumed with the words of those who choose to speak so ill of gay people. I hear things from time to time, pause to convince myself that the majority of the people in the world may not agree with such hateful comments, and then get on with my day.

I'm unable to do that today. I'm not really sure why, but I'm just not able to accept it today. I sit back and stay pretty quiet on this topic as I don't want to create waves and offend others. I try to stay cool and allow people to have their views and not let those views affect me. I'm tired of accepting it. I'm tired of not letting my voice be heard. I'm tired of walking on eggshells around people who don't think about how their hateful words affect others and that maybe, just maybe they are really doing much more harm than anyone.

There are so many questions I have, specifically for people who are so adamantly opposed to allowing equal rights to same-sex couples. I would like to speak directly to those people for a moment: Why do you care? What is it you are so afraid of? How is your life affected by two strangers living their life peacefully together? How does the marriage of two people threaten your marriage? Why do you think you have the right to generalize the ideologies of your religious beliefs to the entire country?

The fact that a lot of the arguments are based on Biblical context is fairly disturbing to me. Since this country is based on the separation of church and state, how are Biblical texts relevant in making an argument for legislation? The simple fact that everyone in the United States doesn't believe in the Bible and doesn't have to believe in the Bible, makes it an irrelevant document in terms of legislating. It can certainly inform the values of its believers, many who happen to be lawmakers, but it cannot be used specifically as an argument.

I think I'm stuck today because of Michele Bachmann, U.S. Congresswoman from Minnesota. In an interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews last Friday, she suggested that Barack Obama has "anti-American values" and that the media should investigate how many democrats in congress are actually anti-American. In what way are these comments helpful in forming a more perfect union? How does further dividing the country with these divisive comments make this a better place to live? It is irresponsible and dangerous.

Her comment was denounced by Colin Powell as "nonsense" in an October 19, 2008 interview. Powell said, “This business of... a congresswoman from Minnesota who’s going around saying, ‘Let’s examine all congressmen to see who’s pro-America and who’s not pro-America. We have got to stop this kind of nonsense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and our diversity." Thank you, Mr. Powell.

In support of a constitutional amendment she proposed to ban same-sex marriage, Bachmann said that the gay community was specifically "targeting children." Bachmann believes that people who are homosexual, lesbian, bisexual or transgender suffer from "sexual dysfunction" and "sexual identity disorders." I assume these latter comments are inspired by her husband who operates a Christian counseling center.

This kind of language is hurtful. It cuts right to the center of who I am. I'm gay and there is nothing I can do about it. I have accepted that fact and frankly, it's just not a big deal. I live my life day-to-day trying to make the world a little better place to live. As much as I try to wrap my mind around it (and trust me, I try very hard to understand the opposite view) - I just can't seem to understand why people like Michele Bachmann wake up each day and work hard to ensure that I cannot enjoy the same things in life that she can. I don't understand why she thinks it's ok to pass such extreme judgment on people that she does not know or understand.

I'm stuck at the moment, but I won't be for much longer. I will be able to go about my daily business and try to make the world a better place for all. But people like Congresswoman Bachmann will be stuck in a world in which they feel the need to pass judgment and hatred and in doing so make the world a much less desirable place for a lot of people. When we are all looking back on our lives, who will feel better about what they have contributed to the world?

I suppose that's not for us to decide.

Photo from minnesotamonitor.com

Enough is right!

How incredible would it be to be in Denver, CO right now? There are so many thoughts going through my mind - this will most likely be one of those entries in which I ramble on and on in disorganized fashion.

As you will have noticed from my earlier posts in the week, I have been fairly disappointed with the DNC. I felt there was a lot of wasted time each night and I wanted a more focused message. With each night things got better, and after tonight I say: What a convention!

It's no secret that I'm a huge fan of the Clintons. I thought they both gave remarkable speeches at the convention that, if the Democrats win, will have played a very important role. There's a huge part of me that will always wish that Hillary would have been the nominee.

That being said, this convention was a major turning point for me and I can now say, without reservation, that I am prepared to fully support Barack Obama.

One thing that I have noticed, throughout this campaign, is how truly impressive the Obama campaign has been run. They don't screw up. Sure, there have been a few miss steps here and there, but I get the impression that everything is so well thought out and planned. Obama's speech this evening was certainly the most impressive political event that I've seen. I had fear that it was going to be a bit too much, perhaps crossing the line of being tasteful. I was wrong - class all the way.

Tonight was a great night for Democrats, but more, it was a great night for America. Barack Obama laid out his vision for this nation. A nation that just ten years ago was thriving and experiencing some of its best moments. Most of that now - destroyed. Tonight, Obama answered those who asked what change meant and he proved to me that he is ready to throw down with John McCain.

"Tonight, tonight, I say to the people of America, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land: Enough." This was one of my favorite lines in the speech. Enough is right! This is our country, not Bush and Cheney's. It is time we take it back and restore the dignity and integrity America once stood for.

Another favorite, " Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn't know." So true.

I think that Republicans are going to have a difficult time answering the Democrats next week. We ended our convention on such a high note. I realize that the election is basically at a dead heat, but I have to think tonight changed that.

"So I've got news for you, John McCain: We all put our country first." This was another section in the speech that I really liked. Republicans have horrible policies for middle class Americans, so they ALWAYS attack their opponents patriotism; it gets really old. Why would someone run for the presidency of the United States if he or she didn't love this country?? It's a ridiculous accusation to make and I'm very glad Obama called them out on it.

Well, as I said, this was going to be one of those rambley posts. I'm very anxious to see what the next days bring. Will Obama get a bounce from tonight? How will the Republicans respond next week? Will we wake up to a different America tomorrow? It feels like it at the moment.

In the words of Tim Russert, "What a country."

Because is actually not an answer

As you surely know by now, my mind has been largely dominated over the past year by the presidential race.  I have always been a bit of a political junkie, but perhaps now more than ever.  I have supported Senator Hillary Clinton essentially the entire time.  I hadn't made up my mind immediately, but by the time the race was in full swing - I knew she was the best person for the job - and I still think she is, and always will be regardless of what happens.

In talking to various people about the election and the candidates, I have come across people that say, "I wouldn't vote for Hillary, I don't like her."  Oh, ok - that's fair enough, I guess.  I would/will then generally follow up with, "Why don't you like her?"  A common response is, "I don't trust her."  Alright, and once again I say, "why?"  Only to be followed with something like, "I don't know, just because." 

Am I supposed to be satisfied with that answer?  Some might say that I should be.  They would say that If you don't trust or like a candidate then you shouldn't vote for him or her.  I understand that point.  But when we look at what it truly means to be an informed voter in the United States of America, to me, that means to know where the candidates stand on the issues and support the one that aligns best with your views.

When someone asks me why I don't support Senator Obama, I can answer with concrete factual statements about the issues.  Would you like to hear some?  Alright.  1) I don't think his health care plan is good enough.  It doesn't guarantee coverage for all Americans - not even close actually.  To me, this is not acceptable.  The country is ready to move towards universal health care, we have to have a president who has a plan to do so.   2) His foreign policy or lack their of is something I find a little frightening.  He is willing to have unilateral talks with anyone.  This is not smart - it is careless and any respected foreign policy scholar will say the same.  3) He has voted "present" hundreds of time.  This is a huge red flag to me.  Is he not able to take a stand on an issue?  Is he so focused on getting to the White House that rather than risking losing the support of voters over a decision he made, he just decides not to take a stance?  This is very disconcerting to me. 

I could go on, but that's not the point of this article.  My point is that I don't care if people aren't going to support Hillary (well that's not entirely true), that is certainly their choice.  I have a problem though when they don't have facts to back up their decision.  

"Because" just isn't good enough.

To the people of Ohio and Texas,

You have a very important responsibility on March 4.  You have a choice to either vote as a truly informed voter who has taken time to look at the issues or a voter who is influenced by unfounded momentum and the media.  

I watched the MSNBC debate this evening between Senators Clinton and Obama.  To me, it is striking how much more she understands every single issue from every single angle.  I know that Senator Clinton isn't able to go as in depth as she would like on certain issues, such as foreign policy, mostly because of party unity.  I wish she would.  If Senator Obama is the nominee you know that John McCain certainly will.

I don't think Senator Obama's stance of never supporting the Iraq war is going to hold up against the republicans.  Senator Clinton touched on the reason a bit tonight, but didn't go too far into it - most likely out of fear of looking too much like a bitch.  She's either too weak or too cold hearted; the poor thing is attacked for whatever she says or does.  Anyway, she stated that when it was time to vote to authorize the Iraq war, Senator Obama was not a sitting senator.  He did not have the responsibility to vote (not that he would have as his record shows).  And as David Gregory points out - McCain is going to focus on this.  Senator Obama did not have access to intelligence, albeit corrupt by the Bush administration.  I wish that people would think back to 2002.  It is safe to say that sadly the majority of the American people thought that Iraq and Saddam had something to do with 9-11.  The Bush administration used its normal tactics of deception to scare the crap out of Americans, and sold the idea that we had to go into Iraq.  

It is easy for Senator Obama to say years later that he never supported the war.  Well, I would suggest that were he a sitting senator in 2002, he most likely would have voted for the war - as most did.  

Is this really his stance on foreign policy?  His judgement that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq?  You have a candidate in Hillary Clinton who has traveled the world and gained the respect of its leaders.  She understands, on every level, what needs to be done and how to get it done.  She understands how dangerous the eastern region is, while Senator Obama's plans seem to only make it more dangerous.

This is no time to vote for another candidate that is not prepared to be president of the most powerful nation in the world.  We've tried that - we've been down this road for 8 years, and I do not want to go down it again.

Well, I could ramble on and on and on and on for literally ever about this.  I will however stop and hope that tomorrow brings better news.  

I will leave you with this quote from Gerald Corey. "Although hope can be a therapeutic factor that leads to change, unrealistic hope can pave the way for a pattern of failures." 

This is my point.

Watch this, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4VK9wVAi0

The Dream Team

The democratic presidential debate in South Carolina was depressing, to say the least. It was extremely negative with each candidate attacking the other on pointless issues. It resembled an elementary schoolyard squabble more than a presidential debate. It made me so uncomfortable at times I had to look away as I witnessed my beloved party falling apart being my eyes. I had visions of 2004; an election the democrats should have won, but didn't because the party couldn't get its act together and the campaign was a joke at best.

Thursday evening's debate was polar opposite of that South Carolina debate. As I watched the Senators Clinton and Obama discuss the issues like grown, intellectual adults, I began to get that feeling in my stomach. That feeling when you know you have something firm to stand beside. I've always been an idealist at heart - the debate in California stoked that idealism that was barely hanging on by embers within me. I could feel the excitement around the country from my couch in my living room - change in the right direction is on the horizon.

So are these two Senators going to run together? Who knows. I would say though that it certainly doesn't seem to be as impossible as it might have a week ago. CNN's Wolf Blizter asked them if it was a possibility. They didn't say it was, but the important thing is that they didn't say it wasn't.

I think the best way to get this country back on track is with Senator Clinton as the president and Senator Obama as the vice president. They each bring to the table a multitude of talents. In the most simple analysis: Clinton with the knowledge; Obama with the inspiration.

In a few short days we may see if this dream team comes together.

Photo from CNN.com